social issues

Supreme Court Decides Student Strip Search Case

noreply@blogger.com (Lorraine Kasprisin) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:35:00 +0000

(Cross-posted from the Journal of Educational Controversy blog)

The U.S. Supreme Court decision on the student strip search case was announced today. The ACLU , who represented April Redding, the mother of the Arizona student, Savana Redding, calls it the first victory for student rights in the last twenty years. The High Court ruled that the search that took place when honors student Savana was 13 years old was an unconstitutional violation of her rights. The search was done by school officials on the basis of an uncollaborated accusation by another student that Savanna had ibuprofen in her prosession. Now nineteen years old, Savanna wrote about her experience and her court victory on the ACLU blog today.

Savana's own words about her court victory from the ACLU blog:

Civics 101
by Savana Redding

"People of all ages expect to have the right to privacy in their homes, belongings, and most importantly, their persons. But for far too long, students have been losing these rights the moment they step foot onto public school property -- a lesson I learned firsthand when I was strip-searched by school officials just because another student who was in trouble pointed the finger at me. I do not believe that school officials should be allowed to strip-search kids in school, ever. And though the U.S. Supreme Court did not go quite so far, it did rule that my constitutional rights were violated when I was strip-searched based on nothing more than a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that I had given her ibuprofen. I'm happy for the decision and hope it helps make sure that no other kids will have to experience what I went through.

"Strip searches are a traumatic intrusion of privacy. Forcing children to remove their clothes for bodily inspection is not a tool that school officials should have at their disposal. Yet, until today, the law was apparently unclear, potentially allowing for the most invasive of searches based on the least of suspicions. Every day, parents caution their children about the importance of not talking to strangers, looking both ways before crossing the street, and following directions at school. But I imagine they never think to warn them that a school official, acting on a hunch, may force them to take their clothes off in the name of safety. And now, thankfully, they won't have to.

"Our fundamental rights are only as strong as the next generation believes them to be, and I am humbled to have had a part in preserving and promoting the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights."

Readers can read the U.S. Supreme Court decision here.

Editor: The journal recently published some articles on another student rights case, Morse v. Frederick, decided by the U.S Supreme Court in 2007.

Readers can read two articles on that case in our journal's Winter 2008 issue on "Schooling as if Democracy Matters.

"Visions of Public Education In Morse v. Frederick by Aaron H. Caplan

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus”: Have students’ First Amendment rights to free speech been changed after Morse v. Frederick? by Nathan M. Roberts

Announcing the New Educational Institute for Democratic Renewal

noreply@blogger.com (Lorraine Kasprisin) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:43:00 +0000

We have just put up a post on the Journal of Educational Controversy Blog about our newly formed Educational Institute for Democratic Renewal. We are anxious to get ideas and feedback. Check it out.

Education for the Public Good - TED talk

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Knight-Abowitz) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:21:00 +0000

Liz Coleman of Bennington College calls for us to reinvent liberal arts education in a recently posted TED talk. This talk documents the way "expertise" has overthrown the generalist, "with increasing emphasis on the technical and obscure." She disses postmodern deconstructionism in literature, which I find unnecessary and a bit unintellectual, but she makes a good case for something that many of us already know: that higher education institutions have no clear sense of the democratic purposes of education. She says that despite the explosion of community service programs on campuses, these remain strictly outside the curriculum, and the current civic engagement push is oversimplified and does not disturb, ultimately, the basic neutral and expert stance that characterizes the academy's curriculum. Higher education (her focus) no longer provides the capacity for deep civic engagement, she argues. We are "playing with fire in terms of our responsibilities for the health of this democracy," she states. While some of her points are a bit overstated, and "education for education's sake" seems to be utterly dismissed, I think her basic point is right on. It is exactly the stance that makes folks like Stanley Fish crazy.

Community as Intellectual Space, 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Chip Bruce) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:19:00 +0000

The fifth annual Community as Intellectual Space Symposium will be held on June 12-14 at La Estancia on 2753 W. Division Street, Paseo Boricua, Chicago, Illinois.

The theme of the symposium is Critical Pedagogy: Community Building as Curriculum. As professionals and institutions are engaging with communities to enhance the life chances and well-being of residents, the conference examines how community-building and critical pedagogy can offer effective and sustainable change, locally and among collaborators as well.

The keynote speaker this year is Antonia Darder, a Professor at the University of Illinois in Educational Policy Studies and Latino/a Studies. There will be presentations and workshops on

Community Based Research;

Urban Agriculture;

Community Informatics and Service-Learning;

Social Emotional Learning at Dr. Pedro Albizu Campos High School;

Critical Pedagogy and its Application to Teacher Certification;

Community Health at the Barrio Arts, Culture, and Communications Academy;

Community Archiving and Web 2.0 Cataloging.

The conference also offers Batey Urbano's production of Crime against Humanity, screenings of original documentaries filmed on Paseo Boricua, community tours, and art exhibits.

Community as Intellectual Space is co-organized by the Juan Antonio Corretjer Puerto Rican Cultural Center (Chicago) and the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Science. Continuing Professional Development Units (CDPUs), academic course credit for those who enroll in UI's LIS590 CIO, and registration scholarships available.

Cross post from Chip's Journey

Nick Burbules of Illinois on technology and education

noreply@blogger.com (A. G. Rud) — Sun, 31 May 2009 23:25:00 +0000

Two short clips on YouTube of blogger Nick Burbules being interviewed in Argentina about technology and education.

Cross posted from Education Policy Blog.

The Audacity of "We"

jcovales@ou.edu (john covaleskie) — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:20:00 +0000

Presidential rhetoric has always been an instrument of public education. in retrospect it is remarkable how effectively Ronald Reagan used the “bully pulpit” to teach Americans not to trust government—to reject the notion that there is a common good. His rhetoric was powerfully educational, and the result has been to dissolve the sense of common good that had been the underpinning of the New Deal. With the rhetoric of individuality, Reagan used his position as educator-in-chief to teach us that “…government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem” (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreagandfirstinaugural.html). That idea was the heart of the Reagan Revolution: the denial, in the starkest possible terms of the fundamental idea of the New Deal—that we are in this together.

More to the point, Reagan taught the American people to reject the notion at the core of democratic life: that “we the people” are not estranged from government, but we are the government. Eliminating this premise from public life lay the foundation for everything that followed in the Reagan Revolution: the loss of progressive taxation, the increased divide between the rich and the poor; the decay of infrastructure so it could be sold off to the highest bidder; and the drive to privatize schooling, among other effects. In general, the loss of any sense that there is a “we” in a communal sense. The body politic was reduced to the market place, where people come together to pursue their individual interests competitively or in parallel, but not in common.

That is the point of some of Reagan’s most famous aphorisms, among them: “…the 10 most dangerous words in the English language are, ‘Hi, I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help’”; and … government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” The shift in public rhetoric he engineered was prefigured by his campaign mantra: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Not, “are we better off?” but “we,” which rhetorically was “I.” This was a marked difference from the public rhetoric of the previous half-century, and as public education, it was very effective: it both justified and begin the deconstruction of democracy as a project of the common good, as opposed to the pursuit of individual good.

Public speech has been largely miseducative over the past two generations, beginning with Reagan’s opposition democratic life as a shared existence. One effect of the deconstruction of the commons has been a marked loss of civility. In my life the essentially civil discourse of Lawrence Spivak’s original Meet The Press and William F. Buckley’s Firing Line has been replaced by the mindless shouting matches on Crossfire so nicely skewered by Jon Stewart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE). Even more corrosive have been the propaganda machines made profitable by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. So we pursue our political aims individually, with no sense of common purpose. People like Diane Rehm labor to continue a public conversation, but their numbers and influence are small compared to those who seek to end public speech.

Bill Moyers once described democracy as “government by conversation.” This is why the dissolution of civil discourse is so dangerous; when we can not hear each other speak (see Tom Green on the nature of public speech at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v2n5.html), we can not make democracy function. At least not democracy that has any sense of common good; without real public speech, “the center can not hold.”

For this reason I find President Obama’s recent address at Notre Dame so encouraging (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051701357_pf.html). In this speech he begins to particularize the public idea he articulated in his 2004 address to the Democratic National Convention (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm). That remarkable address to the nation was a call to reconstitute a public. He reminded us that the hard work of individuals is futile without the support of the commons in matters of common welfare (unions, health care, good schools, veterans benefits). This was the beginning (one hopes) of an effort to undo the damage to democratic life done by the work of the right wing in this country: it is a powerful example of public speech and therefore of public education. The reminder that we are all in this together, and that we must speak to each other and listen to each other: “It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work.” This is rhetoric employed by few politicians and no presidents since LBJ, whose statement that “we shall overcome” was a call to a public consciousness.

At Notre Dame, he tried to realize that rhetorical flourish in addressing perhaps the most divisive issue in US political life: abortion. After pointing out that the current economic conditions are the result of acting on “…immediate self-interest and crass materialism,” (another claim not often made in the public sphere), and after his speech is interrupted a few times by protestors, he moves into the discussion of abortion.

The speech is educative in both its audience and its tone. The audience could perhaps not be more openly skeptical: he is articulating a pro-choice position at a—perhaps the—Roman Catholic University in the US. The very presence of hecklers is an instructive reminder about the nature of democracy, a much needed public lesson after eight years of a President afraid to speak to audiences of unscreened citizens.

In tone, it is instructive. He begins his discussion of the abortion controversy by acknowledging, as he has done before, that he has not always accorded the proper charity to those with whom he disagreed, recalling an incident where he spoke of “…right wing ideologues who would take away a woman’s right to choose.” It is important to note that he was not backing away from his policy commitment to choice; it was the ungenerous portrayal of those with whom he disagreed that he regretted. It is only when we talk about our differences “with a presumption of good faith,” that, “…we discover at least the possibility of common ground.” It is also when we discover the possibility of a public.

He goes on to what strikes me as a quite remarkable passage on the politics of abortion. In it, he acknowledges that many of us would like to “fudge” the issue, but we can not do so: “…at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.” This is something I can not think of many politicians making: an honest admission that, while civil discussion is always necessary, not every conflict is open to compromise; the discussion must continue indefinitely and with patience and mutual respect. This is not easy; if it were, more of us would probably be doing it.

But having seen the damage Reagan’s rhetoric of disconnection and opposition to the common good helped create the deconstruction of the public square, we can hope that a president speaking the language of common good and common interest can help reweave the tattered fabric of our commons. The president is only commander-in-chief of the military in times of war, but the president is always the public educator-in-chief. Preliminary evidence is that President Obama, whatever his other shortcomings, is up to the task.

Public Understanding of Science: What We're Up Against

noreply@blogger.com (David Waddington) — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:15:00 +0000

As many educators already know, the challenge of public understanding of science is not limited to the general public, but is also present amongst our political leadership. A month or so ago, I told you about Canada's Minister of Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, who refused to state publicly whether he adhered to the theory of evolution. This month, I've decided to share with you an American example: Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas), ranking Republican member of the House energy committee. Notably, the Wall Street Journal has called this man the "House GOP's leading expert on energy policy."

In order to get a sense of Rep. Barton's level of expertise, here he is talking about climate change:

He informs us that carbon dioxide is nothing to worry about since it is a "natural product" and shares with us the reassuring knowledge that CO2 is "in your Dr. Pepper." At the end, he sums up his message with the following remark:

We think it's futile to try to regulate something that's (a) not a pollutant (b) is not going to help the environment one way or the other and (3) (sic) is so ubiquitous that in reality you're just kind of shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

Fantastic.

Another Rep. Barton clip that I particularly enjoyed is his questioning of Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Barton apparently feels that he "stumped" Chu, and captioned this video (which he posted in his own YouTube space) "Where Does Oil Come From? Question Leaves Energy Secretary Puzzled." I invite you to mull over the source of Secretary Chu's "puzzlement":

As entertaining as some may find Rep. Barton's remarks, one of the interesting things about them is that if you didn't know much about science, they might seem reasonable. His position, such as it is, is explained clearly. Reasons are given. After all, CO2 is "natural" and "in your Dr. Pepper," so what could possibly be wrong with it? A solid STS-leaning science education might be able to teach students how to criticize this reasoning, but the continuing success (in advertising and elsewhere) of claims about the "natural" may testify to the fact that science curricula are not delivering the goods in this regard.

Thankfully, Rep. Barton no longer holds the chairmanship of the Energy Committee. Cooler heads (or hotter ones, at least with respect to climate change) have prevailed, which is certainly good news for those of us who are concerned about the environment.

Charter entreprenuers as organizers?

noreply@blogger.com (Kathleen Knight-Abowitz) — Mon, 11 May 2009 18:36:00 +0000

In today's LA Times, the article "Parents are urged to demand more from LA schools," presents an odd and interesting juxtapositioning. Here is a charter school entrepreneur -- one of the founders of Green Dot Public Schools (a charter not-for-profit) -- who is urging parents to get organized to demand better schools for their kids. The Parent Revolution is a tool to help parents in Los Angeles communities create political pressure on schools to improve. Steve Barr's initiative is aimed to empower parents but has potential benefits for charter organizers like Green Dot, as the article points out: "With parents, they predict, they'll have the clout to pressure the Los Angeles Unified School District to improve schools. They'll also have petitions, which Barr and his allies will keep at the ready, to start charter schools. If the district doesn't deliver, targeted neighborhoods could be flooded with charters, which aren't run by the school district. L.A. Unified would lose enrollment, and the funding would go to the charters instead of to the district."

This effort to organize parents in neighborhoods where families are least empowered and most educational disadvantaged unites bizzare bedfellows: Barr, the LA Chamber of Commerce, and the Eli Broad foundation, all of whom are bankrolling this initiative. The initiative is not ostensibly about promoting a charter school agenda, but clearly charters are an animating "stick," if you will, that those promoting the Parents Revolution see as a motivational force, a stick that would be aligned with Barr's interests as well as the Chamber of Commerce's, I would guess.

In my own work I'm increasingly fascinated with the ways in which community organizing language, tools, and strategies are being used by educators and families, and the ways this tradition of activism and community-based leadership are being born anew in today's school reform movements. This particular article highlights the strange linking of business, nonprofit, and poor communities in contemporary urban neighborhoods. As those writing on community organizing in education today have documented (see Aaron Schutz's online commentaries, among others), educators have much to learn about this tradition and how it might serve educational progressives today. Barr and his Parent Revolution in Los Angeles is yet another reworking of this tradition, but one which significantly steps away from an Alinskyan framework. Can we really utter the terms "grassroots" and "Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce" in the same breath? I certainly know what Alinsky would say.....

Getting it wrong again, and again (and again)

noreply@blogger.com (Craig A. Cunningham) — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:34:00 +0000

This is cross-posted from Education Policy Blog.

So once again two "former governors from different political parties who remain passionate about the quality of education in America" (Chicago Tribune, Perspective, May 3, 2009) have weighed in with a grand proposal about how Arne Duncan should use his "$5 billion to transform education in America" to "improve student achievement and ultimately revolutionize our economy and workforce for the 21st century."

Neither Jeb Bush nor James B. Hunt Jr. have any background in the field of education, other than being governors. Neither has ever been a teacher, principal, superintendent (although it's possible Hunt had some personal knowledge of education, having majored in college in "agricultural education"--although he seems to have gone on and immediately got a masters studying how to raise tobacco better, oh, and within two years of college was also studying law--he only failed the bar exam the first time--and was, according to all of biographies I can find on the Web, "an early proponent of teaching standards," and married a teacher, although she quit her job as teacher to become full-time first-lady--can't blame her for that!). Yet because they are "passionate" about "the quality of education in America," and because they believe themselves (implicitly) to offer a balanced perspective (being, after all, "from different political parties"), they think they know how best to spend that money.

Let's hope that Arne doesn't take their advice lock, stock, and barrel.

One of their ideas is truly innovative and would be a very good idea: create a national, free, repository of world-class online educational opportunities where "students, parents, teachers, principals, and school administrators" (and former governors?!?) "could shop for a better education. Virtual courses open to everyone would tear down the chief barrier to student achievement--access to a quality education." Well, that certainly is ONE barrier to student achievement, and it could be reduced through such a national repository. The two former governors liken it to "an Amazon.com of courses and curricula." I don't really think that's the correct analogy, but there might be some worth in using an interface like Amazon's, including user ratings and reviews. I'd prefer an analogy like the American Memory project of the Library of Congress (which makes public domain and other archival materials available with a simple-to-use interface), of learning objects. (While learning objects might include "courses and curricula," we need to dramatically broaden our conception of what kind of content would provide the most useful "access to a quality education"--and "learning object" is a good, neutral, non-confining conception.) Add on a Web 2.0 type of access system (including the folksonomy of tags, ratings, personal profiles, sharing, etc. on the order of Diigo or De.lic.i.ous) and this is a wonderful, doable idea. Just make sure that you've got teachers involved, because teachers DO know some things that "former governors" do not, about motivation, the influence of culture and peer pressure, and the importance of appropriate scaffolds for each individual learner. Because "access to quality education" isn't just a matter of making it available on the Amazon-courses-repository.com. In fact, "access" is, at best, half of the solution to making sure every student gets a quality education..."access" depends, in large measure, on the student having both the interest in the resources and the skills or guidance necessary to use it appropriately...two factors that aren't magically in place once something is available online!...a point that is obvious to anyone who has actually poked around on the Web and realized what is ALREADY available there, to those who know what they want and how to find it.

The other suggestions made by these "passionate" "former governors" (who, of course, are therefore the most qualified to know what can "improve student achievement"...just look at all the positive gains that former governors have produced in American students during the past 20 years when "former governors" have been so front-and-center in reform efforts!) make are kind of laughable, not only because we've heard them all before, but because they are proffered with such complete naivete about how familiar they have become. Schools should have "comprehensive data systems," so that we can use the "test scores" of a whole "class" to "tell us whether a teacher is effective" and "an entire state of test scores" to "tell whether a policy is working." "When empirical data replace emotion as the basis for developing policy, America will be able to transformt he quality of education into a world-class system of learning." GOLLY! What a new idea!!!! Get rid of that most human of characteristics--emotion--and that most human of activities--education--will suddenly become as efficient and effective as the "world class" automobile industries America has created using the mantra of Total Quality Management and Continuous Improvement!!

(Wait! Haven't these "empirical" systems of management been used in corporate America for decades!?!? Have they made our industries "world-class"? Has the evisceration of emotion from business resulted in the dramatic increases in quality that these "former governors" (passionate--mind you!) predict for the schools??!?)

(Yesterday, I was at a keynote address at the National-Louis University's Center for Practitioner Research Forum, given by Karen Gallas, whom I really liked. Karen, of course, got way, way, WAY, too caught up in emotion, when she talked about how the kindergarteners she was teaching on the Navaho reservation responded so directly to her efforts at forming close relationships with them, but only showed "bald-faced defiance" to her attempts to use authority...and about how these kids could only really be brought into a cooperative group when Karen came to her wit's end and began quietly singing "Little Rabbit Foo-Foo" to herself in the middle of a chaotic classroom. I don't recall hearing Karen talk about the relationship of this "out of the blue" inspiration to just sing with "empirical data" or even "comprehensive data systems." In fact, now that I think about it "passionately" (like these former governors...WAIT! they don't want passion...they want DATA), Karen was WAY too emotionally involved in her job, and with her students, to possibly be effective with them. Damn emotion....get it OUT of schools and classrooms!!! There's the ticket!!!)

But I digress from describing these, um, tired and worn out reform suggestions. In addition to more comprehensive data systems and more empirical data and (God willing!) less emotion, these passionate (um, emotional? No, of course not, these guys are totally empirical....um, except of course they ignore the record of the, um, "success" of these reform suggestions...I guess maybe the demand for "empirical data" doesn't apply to "former governors" writing op-eds in national newspapers....)

But I digress again. The suggestions!!! "Making progress toward rigorous college-and career-ready standards and assessments". (WOW, there's a new idea). "Making improvements in teacher effectiveness" (hmm....like the improvements in the quality of American automobiles...yes? Let's model teacher education programs after corporate quality assurance programs! Yes!) Oh, and "providing intensive support and effective interventions for the lowest-performing schools." (Oooooh, yeah, there's the ticket! More requirements for direct instruction in those skills measured on the tests....more shutting down those schools that are dysfunctional...more reconstitution of schools requiring every staff member to re-apply so we can replace the veterans with wet-behind-the-ears recruits who will toe the line and parrot our "world class" curriculums and (by the way) let's make sure the principals of the reconstituted schools get the power to force at least a third of the recalcitrant STUDENTS out, too!). Oh, and creating a market for quality teachers by paying them more! (Hmmm.....I actually like that one....it appeals to my sense of the importance of teaching, especially in difficult schools...but, um, is that really based on empirical data...or is that an emotional response to the visceral sense I have that good teachers are worth their weight in gold....oh, I GET IT...the demand for "empirical data" to replace "emotion" is only required in those cases where emotion somehow conflicts with the corporatization of schooling!!! Aha! Why don't the former governor's just SAY THAT?!?!

"PASSIONATE FORMER GOVERNORS--FROM BOTH PARTIES--CALL FOR FURTHER CORPORATIZATION OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS" -- now there's a headline that speaks the truth!!!

Hmmm, clearly, I've let my emotions run away from me. Back to the data...um, what data? There's no data in this piece. There's just a string of cliches about the (clearly obvious...no need for data here) ways that schools will (WILL, we say!) be improved by applying corporatist management strategies to schools.

Then there's the call for the national online learning object repository and Web 2.0-like user-created-folksonomy access system (using my language for it). The former governors write "let's stop tinkering around the edges of reforms and really revolutionize the way we deliver knowledge to students." (You know, the way that FedEx and UPS have "really revolutionized the way we deliver" parcels to people. I think we need bar codes on the students' foreheads....no, really, that will help!) (No "tinkering around the edges...MORE DATA SYSTEMS!!!)...."Learning is no longer local, yet we still operate in a system ruled by traditonal course work and antiquated textbooks."

Hmmmm..... "learning is no longer local"? What? Where's the data for that claim, gentlemen? Methinks you might be confusing two things: (1) the globalization of the kinds of things we want our kids to learn, and (2) the locus of ALL learning, which is in the hearts and minds of individual students (Sorry, no hearts...can't have that emotion)...in the MINDS of individual students.

Huh? Wait. We're trying to get that "individual" part out of there, aren't we??!? Education should assume (ASSUME!) that "learning is no longer local." And, of course, that means getting rid of "traditional course work and antiquated textbooks". Well, yeah, that would be good. And replace it all with a NATIONAL ONLINE CAMPUS OF VIRTUAL SCHOOLS! Yes!!! All of them stripped, if possible, of anything emotional or local. After all, this isn't about individual people! It's about transforming America's educational system!!!

Damn. I'm just overwhelmed with how much sense this makes. Kids not learning?!?! They clearly need more standards and more tests. And get rid of those veteran teachers using those traditional methods. We need those Navajo kindergarteners to get online, and get learning. Put them in Blackboard! (Or, better, Amazon.com!) Then they'll learn!!!

Just to make sure you understand how "passionate" they are, these former governors end their provocative perspective piece with a reminder that "The world has entered into an education arms race. The winners will be the countries that prepare their students will the knowledge and skills to scucess in the increasingly cometitive global marketplace. Science, math, engineering...these fields of study are the breeding ground of innovation and the fountainhead of prosperity."

O.M.G. We're back in 1957. Sputnik has launched, and our nation better be gear up for an "education arms race." Gotta get those scientists educated. Gotta be steely-eyed about this. No emotion. Facts!

Culture? Motivation? Interest? Relationships? Critical thinking?!??!

None of that is important.

We're at war, and we must act. Passionately. Doing the same things we've been trying to do for years. But working harder.

And without emotion, please.

The Underpants of Justice, Huge and Small

noreply@blogger.com (Amy Shuffelton) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:06:00 +0000

Justice Stephen Breyer’s underpants made the national news last week, when the Supreme Court heard the case of Safford Unified School District v Redding. When Savana Redding was in eighth grade, she was strip-searched by school officials on suspicion that she was hiding ibuprofen in her underpants. Another student had told school officials that Savana might have prescription-strength ibuprofen, and, on no further evidence, school officials made Ms. Redding strip to her underwear, shake out her bra, and pull out her underpants. Supported by the ACLU (and doesn’t this kind of thing make you grateful for the ACLU!), she and her family took the case to court.

The Supreme Court and the media are framing the case as a conflict between security and student rights. On the one hand, students’ right to privacy; on the other hand, the school’s responsibility to put safety first. The Supreme Court seems to be leaning towards supporting security. As reported by the New York Times, Justice David Souter “may have summarized the mood of the court near the end of the argument in the case” with his comment that “I would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search, if we can’t find anything short of that, than to have some other kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry”.

If the case is framed that way – privacy rights versus security – the arguments go back and forth in a familiar way. But there’s another principle at stake here that media commentary has mostly overlooked. If we look at this situation not as a battle but as a problem for schools to solve – how to stop young people from harming themselves and each other with drugs – both sides could probably agree to the principle of respect for bodies. One of the strongest arguments against abusing drugs (I’m not going to say using, as I’ve taken the occasional ibuprofen myself) is that our bodies make it possible for human beings to achieve marvelous ends, provided we treat them with the respect they deserve.

I’m not exactly calling for decriminalizing drugs, nor am I advocating the “your body is a temple” line. Rather, I am suggesting that adolescents might be more likely to avoid doing dumb stuff with drugs if the adults around them encouraged them to think of their bodies as powerful, respect-worthy, and capable of taking them places they want to go. Some of what adolescents do with their bodies, of course, is unlikely to win the approval of all parents (the obvious example is having sex, but also staying up all night dancing, hitchhiking around Europe, midnight sledding, etc.), but these activities are hardly criminal or a threat to others. And if we want to treat adolescents to respect their own bodies, schools will need to treat students’ bodies with greater respect too. No strip searches.

Also in the news last week was the Obama administration’s response to the Bush-Cheney era torture cases, the separation of young children from their deported parents, and stories of people desperate to hold on to health care after losing their jobs -- all stories of institutional disrespect for the bodies of others. They are a chilling reminder that our legal system respects the bodies of some people but not all. The same is true of schools, where authorities often forget what it feels like to be small and powerless. “In my experience, when I was 8 or 10 or 12, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day (for gym)”, said Justice Breyer. “And in my experience too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear”. The comment provoked much laughter, but it made me imagine little Stephen Breyer at the age of 8. No one is going to strip search Justice Breyer now, but it’s true that schools have not traditionally protected children from bullying, harassment, and other insults to one’s embodied personhood.

Nowadays, of course, advocating respect seems to be a de facto requirement of elementary and middle schools. Often it’s stated as a rule, which has never made much sense to me, since respect can no more be produced on demand than love, or friendship, or happiness. To give the command substance, perhaps schools should “flesh it out”, literally.

Drawing by William Hanifan published in The Huge Underpants of Gloom, Issue Three, 2009

Evolution for Dummies? A Canadian Cabinet Minister and the Public Understanding of Science

noreply@blogger.com (David Waddington) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:26:00 +0000

Last month, Gary Goodyear (pictured left), Canada’s Minister of State for Science and Technology, created a scandal when he refused to answer a reporter’s question about whether he believed in the theory of evolution, stating that he felt that the question was “inappropriate” because it pertained to his religious beliefs. After a media frenzy ensued, Goodyear changed course, claiming that “of course” he believed in evolution. He then commented that we "are evolving all the time" and added, "That's a fact, whether it's to the intensity of the sun, whether it's to … walking on cement versus anything else, whether it's running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment, but that's not relevant and that's why I refused to answer the question."

Needless to say, this remark did not inspire a great deal of confidence among scientists. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution--Goodyear, evidently, thinks of evolution as a deliberate process that is somehow analogous to human beings' purposive choices.

A misunderstanding like this would be less likely in the United States. Cabinet members in the United States are (usually) subject matter experts, and a qualified scientist would (hopefully) be unlikely to make an error like Goodyear’s. However, in Canada, cabinet ministers are usually members of Parliament. The Prime Minister must choose the cabinet ministers from amongst the members of Parliament (MPs) from his party, which is, necessarily, a fairly limited pool.

Still, the Goodyear incident prompts several questions. One of these is whether he should have ever been appointed to this post--Goodyear failed to complete his undergraduate science degree and, prior to becoming an MP, he was a chiropractor (there is significant debate as to whether chiropractic is scientific). Perhaps most importantly, however, his initial refusal to answer questions about evolution was seen to indicate a lack of commitment to science. Surely, one would hope that the Minister of State for Science and Technology would not possess views that were inimical to the practice of science! (American readers, however, will know that the Bush administration has offered some “great moments in inimicality”—see, for example, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and his views on the U.N.)

Yet this episode also raises a number of broader questions: what kind of understanding of science should a citizen possess? Does it matter whether citizens understand natural selection? Are there some aspects of science that are more important for citizens to understand than others? Certainly, even in his earliest work, Dewey was an emphatic supporter of the public understanding of science. He realized that, as the 20th century dawned, society was becoming increasingly reliant on science and technology. He felt that if citizens were to participate democratically in such a society, they should be able to engage effectively and intelligently with science and technology. As we know from School and Society and from the accounts of the Dewey School, this implied a deep commitment both to the experimental method and to key scientific and technological concepts.

Perhaps, if Gary Goodyear had received a Deweyan education, he would not have bungled the question about evolution so badly. At the very least, however, the whole incident has probably prompted the Minister to engage in an activity very much in the spirit of Dewey: a little bit of "lifelong learning" about the theory of evolution.

Social Journalism and Education

ljwaks@yahoo.com (leonard waks) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:47:00 +0000

Woody Lewis at Mashable writes that on-line social media have replaced the traditional newspaper/magazine media as sources of fast breaking on-the-ground news.

To grasp the power of social media think of the citizens who caught the beating of Rodney King by the LAPD 30 years ago. They could have turned off their cameras and called 911 or the LA Times but did not. Todays citizen advocacy and investigative blogs play a similar role. Lewis explains:

The Web is now the sole distribution channel for newspapers that can no longer afford to publish hardcopy, and those that don’t follow the best practices of social media may see their brands marginalized in cyberspace as well. Social journalism, an extension of those practices, is now an essential component of any news organization’s strategy.

Citizen journalists post photos of fast-breaking events, and cover stories from a different angle than legacy news organizations, but it’s the premeditated watchdog or advocacy role that defines a social journalist. Another factor is the network effect: people using social media to communicate and collaboratively produce content. Editors are still important, but the pieces are shaped by crowd dynamics and the velocity of information.

Lewis' post runs through the past-present-future of social media and is worth a close read. He sees advocacy blogs with an investigative bent as playing a major role going forward.

Take-away

Progressive educators frequently complain about the educational coverage in news and the retrograde policies pushed by even progressive politicians. On-line educational journalism by teachers and students, documenting school conditions and amplfying the voices of concerned teachers and students, would offer a counterpoint and a pressure for change.

Blogging is Better than Schooling

ljwaks@yahoo.com (leonard waks) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 03:00:00 +0000

Debbie Harbeson at Blogging Tips states that Blogging is Better than School.

The mental habits we pick up in school are deadly when blogging, she explains. "People think blogging is hard because they get stuck in schoolish thinking . . . which kills curiosity and makes many people lose confidence in their ability to learn."

She adds:

In school, teachers are necessary for learning . . . But you can learn to blog without a teacher.

In school, there is only one correct answer. . . but in blogging there are many solutions to the same problem.

In school, mistakes are bad. A big part of the success and fun of blogging is experimenting, and mistakes are just another way to learn.

In school, you don’t get to choose the topic you are going to study. When blogging, you get to choose a topic you are truly interested in. Plus, you can go as deep as you want into the subject because there will be no teacher or bell to make you stop and move on to the next class.

You get the point.

But one thing Debbie doesn't consider is that blogging in school is a way of cutting through some of the problems of schoolish thinking.

Courses built around blogging instead of those phony "research projects" may just get some kids involved in creative ways, in learning (mostly) by themselves and their peers, in choosing topics to study based around their interests, in finding their own answers and discovering their own styles, in making non-fatal mistakes and learning through creative fast failure.

Can you think of uses for educational blogs in college classes, or in teacher training?

For a Progressive President, a Very Nonprogressive Educational Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Lorraine Kasprisin) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:06:00 +0000

Cross-posted from the Journal of Educational Controversy Blog.

The progressive language implicit in many of President Obama's programs was no where to be found in the educational policy that he unveiled recently in his speech on education. Rather than an imaginative vision on what we need for public schools in a complex 21st century democracy, President Obama fell back on the language of neoconservatives for things like rewarding teachers and more school choice at least through more charter schools. Essentially, his proposal for new mechanisms for making changes in the educational system lacked any discussion on what these changes were meant to accomplish. For example, a recommendation for more charter schools is a rather neutral suggestion. The real question is: for what purpose and to what end? That requires a much deeper conversation about the public purposes of education for a democracy that is constantly reinventing itself. For some, it is an opportunity to introduce new ideas and innovative approaches. For others, it provides an avenue for choices within our public school system that can meet the diverse needs, aspirations and talents of our children. For still others, charter schools have been seen as a path to privatization and the dismantling of the public schools and teacher unions.

But more importantly, lurking behind President Obama's educational policy are the silent assumptions that have controlled the national debate for decades. A genuine national discussion on educational reform requires that we start to discuss that which has been undiscussable, namely, that the language of the market place has become the language of education. Students are talked about as the human capital that keeps the national economy competitive. But, as educational critic, John Goodlad, has constantly pointed out from surveys taken to determine parents' desires for their children, parents' visions are not limited to seeing their children as human capital or workers for a competitive market force. They consistently say that they want their children treated as whole human beings, nurtured in their growth, inspired in their dreams, and empowered in their civic voice. Of course, the usual retort here is that such goals are not inconsistent with the goal of producing a working force for the labor market. That is true. And so is the response by parents whose children have been marginalized in the schools. They very rightly are demanding that their children succeed in a competitive labor market at the same level that the children of the more privileged have succeeded. Both of these responses are legitimate. But the force of the arguments is to silence the national conversation that we should be having. In a public school system that serves both democracy and capitalism, the language of the market place prevails and all other discourses are on the edge. It is that conversation that the public needs to have. Nations are guided by the stories they tell about themselves. What story are we telling ourselves about the public purposes of our schools?

Readers who are interested in looking at the issues associated with "Schooling as if Democracy Matters," may want to read our Volume 3 Number 1 issue of the Journal of Educational Controversy.

Compromise in the Education Policy War?

ljwaks@yahoo.com (leonard waks) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:56:00 +0000

Dana Goldstein at The American Prospect has provided a comprehensive state of the art summary of the battle between teachers uniions and educational reformers.

It has been noted in these pages that the major issues of educational policy will now be fought within the democratic party. The unions continue to fight against charter schools, merit pay, standardized testing along the lines prescribed in NCLB, and removal of ineffective teachers. The reformers are for all of these things, and there appears to be little room for agreement.

Goldstein writes:
In 2009, the major fight on education policy isn't between Republicans and unions, or even Republicans and Democrats, but rather within the Democratic coalition. And infighting can be the most vicious kind. On one side are the traditional players in education politics -- the two major teachers' unions, the NEA and the AFT. On the other are union-skeptic education-policy wonks sometimes referred to as "reformers." Union-lobbying efforts focus on greater funding for public schools and social services more generally and on opposition to the punishing mandates of the 2001 No Child Left Behind law. The self-designated "reformers," on the other hand, are often enthusiastic about NCLB and testing and are intent on pursuing new management policies, such as merit pay, public charter schools, and even private-school vouchers. They believe, broadly speaking, that free-market principles applied to public schools will improve student achievement, especially in low-income communities of color.

President Obama, however, is working to foster a more cooperative attitude, and Randi Weingarten, the head of the national AFT and its New York City chapter, sensing the momentum of the reformers, appears to be serving up some conciliatory rhetoric upon which a consensus might be built.

"No issue should be off the table, provided it is good for children and fair for teachers," Weingarten vowed, referencing debates within the Democratic coalition over charter schools and performance pay for teachers -- innovations that teachers' unions traditionally held at arm's length.

I have opined in these pages that there is much for a progressive to dislike in both positions, and I am not overly optimistic that a consensus on educational policy within the democratic party will be a positive development.

Daniel Weinstock on Québec's Ethics and Religious Culture Program

noreply@blogger.com (David Waddington) — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:33:00 +0000

A few months ago, I wrote a short post on Social Issues about Québec's new Ethics and Religious Culture program. Religious education may be verboten in public education in the United States, but public schools and religion have a close historical connection here in Québec. Still, the new program has been controversial--it has inspired street protests, and it has drawn fire from a variety of critics.

If anyone would like to hear more about this program, they should not miss Daniel Weinstock's upcoming presentation at the Philosophy of Education Society meeting in Montreal. The presentation, which takes place on Friday, March 20, at 3:45 PM, is entitled "Assessing Québec’s Ethics and Religious Culture Program: A Worthwhile New Direction?" Weinstock is head of the Université de Montréal's Centre for Research on Ethics, and he was one of the authors of the 1999 Proulx Report, "Religion in Secular Schools: A New Perspective for Québec," which helped set the stage for the new program. He is also an engaging speaker--the presentation should be both informative and enjoyable.

Fear, Prudence and Opportunity

noreply@blogger.com (Barbara Stengel) — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 19:27:00 +0000

This week freedom fighter/terrorist William Ayers (who is also an educational theorist and reformer) will be giving an endowed education lecture at Millersville University (Pennsylvania) where I teach. Ayers coming has generated a high level of controversy in the community as legislators have demanded cancellation, citizens have written damning letters to the editor, and "patriots" have made, ironically enough, terroristic threats against the University and its President. Press coverage has been significant and generally fair. (For a look, go to www.lancasteronline.com and search "Ayers.")

The University President has made it clear that the lecture will go on, but the university is under an intellectual "lock down." Tickets for the lecture were limited to students, faculty and staff, and community in that order, and supplies were exhausted before the faculty stepped up to claim theirs. Faculty members have been directed not to talk about the lecture or the lecturer. Security is -- appropriately -- heightened.

What follows is my commentary on the decision to limit discussion and downplay Ayers' visit. It will appear in the university newspaper, "The Snapper," this week.

What are we afraid of? Bill Ayers is coming to MU and we’re missing a huge educational opportunity. We’ve opted instead for prudence. Nobody will ever know for sure if that was the right choice, but we can at least meditate a bit on the decision.

We could all -– conservatives and liberals, hippies and preppies, protestors and supporters – have been licking our chops. We could have planned teach ins and special sessions, sold books and passed around electronic copies of articles, engaged the whole community, invited them to join us in our dialogue about who we are as American educators -- because Bill Ayers embodies two issues that are the bread and butter of American politics and American education.

The first issue involves civil disobedience. Ayers protested -- violently and admittedly illegally -- against the war in Vietnam and the draft that threatened the lives of his generation of men. Property was destroyed. Was he right to do so? Does his case meet Thoreau’s standards for challenging the tax collector? How is Ayers’ case different from the Boston Tea Party for instance?

The second question asks what education is for. Ayers espouses education for intellectual freedom (rather than for economic adjustment), not just for those with the means to exercise such freedom but for those disempowered students who attend urban schools. Is his position the obvious one for a democratic educator or is it an anarchist challenge to American capitalism? Or perhaps both? These are fabulous questions, worthy of our consideration and definitive of the liberal arts education we claim to provide.

Some say – even some who agree with Ayers’ educational philosophy and see, in his Weatherman days, justifiable civil disobedience – that we shouldn’t have invited Ayers to give the Lockey Lecture. “Not prudent” (as Dana Garvey used to say in his imitation of the first George Bush). No, it probably wasn’t prudent. But it’s done now and I’m glad it is. I have read the often nasty letters to the editor of the past several weeks , but I have also listened to friends and others -- near and far – comment on how pleased they are that Millersville is hosting Ayers and/or that the university is not caving to unreasonable demands.

Unfortunately, though, we’re not licking our chops. We are hunkered down, waiting for this too to pass.

Let me be clear. President McNairy has stood tall on the issue of academic freedom. She has done so in a dignified way in the face of organized opposition. I applaud the Administration, not for backing up Bill Ayers, but for finding a center and staying there. And the Administration has exercised prudence, acting to control the media buzz, the potential circus of protestors, and the unfortunately real possibility of “counter-terror.” But our prudence is preventing learning. We are not engaging the community; we are excluding them.

Why didn’t CCERP (Center for Community Engagement) grab a hold of this and schedule speakers who balanced Ayers’ presence, including especially our own alums who have spoken eloquently in local papers on both sides of both issues? Why didn’t the Office of Social Equity use their considerable talents at facilitating dialogue on difficult issues to invite every single person who wrote a letter to the editor or made a phone call to sit at a table with a liberal faculty member and conservative member (there are some, you know J), with conservative student and a liberal student (there are some, you know J) to talk all of this through? Why isn’t the School of Education changing the location to Pucillo Gym as we did with former Lockey Lecturer Jonathan Kozol in order to encourage every future and present teacher to attend?

The answer is prudence – and that scares me. This “teachable moment” is passing us by.

Perhaps you aren’t familiar with the concept “teachable moment.” It refers to the instant when the stars align and the light is concentrated just where you need it to be in a classroom. Something happens and all of a sudden everybody’s paying attention. And they’re paying attention because what they have taken for granted has been challenged. And that, my friends, is the description of openness, of optimum conditions for learning.

I know. Teachable moments are painful – even dangerous -- moments. They are; there’s no way around it. And often we’d just as soon avoid the teachable moments and go on pretending that this is a temporary problem and not a persistent opening to growth and wisdom. But we can’t. Once the door is open, students are learning.

So what are they learning from us now that Bill Ayers’ coming opened the door?

They are learning that we as a community will stand up for academic freedom and freedom of speech – and that’s a wonderful thing. But they also know that we have chosen prudence over growth – and that’s less wonderful.

I suppose it isn’t prudent of me to write this essay. But no matter. It is my way of seizing the opportunity that the Ayers’ appearance offers. I don’t know if Ayers is worth the hubbub. But we are. We are worth the hassle of protests. We are worth the struggle to communicate and to understand even where we can’t agree. That is why we are here.

Slumdog Accountability

noreply@blogger.com (Amy Shuffelton) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:12:00 +0000

Originally, I was going to write a piece on “slumdog epistemology”, but then I read this: The-story-of-Slumdog-Millionaire-decoded . . . and there you have it.

Writing for an Indian readership, Jaimini Mehta notes that the epistemological questions that Slumdog Millionaire raises about “the contextual nature of acquisition of knowledge . . . are of particular relevance now in light of the Prime Minister’s stated objective of moving towards a knowledge economy and knowledge based society”. One might say the same thing of the United States, where talk of emergence from this recession often turns to our own need to become a more knowledge-based economy, to strengthen education for the sake of economic advancement.

In case you missed the movie or Mehta’s analysis, Slumdog Millionaire’s hero, an impoverished young man with a heart of gold, aces an extremely high stakes test – a game show, which wins him 20 million rupees and the woman he loves – by knowing the answers to trivia questions. His knowledge comes not from school, which he barely attended, but from experiences in which that bit of trivia had riveting importance. School neither served him nor failed him (bracketing for now school’s failure to include him); he simply wasn’t there. The movie makes a clear and compelling link between experience, narrative, and learning, one that progressive educators, Dewey and others, might applaud.

But, one might ask, who was accountable for this knowledge? If our “slumdog millionaire” hero Jamal did so well on a high stakes test with no schooling, who deserves the credit? After all, if that’s how we’re to reach a knowledge economy, surely we might learn some lessons from Jamal’s unschooled education.

Slumdog Millionaire is called a “fairy-tale”. Accountability – who or what accounts for Jamal’s knowledge -- shows this to be exactly the case. The movie poses this as a mock game show question -- how did he win? -- to which the correct answer is “destiny”. Destiny is accountable, the movie tries to tell us. Yet if that were really the case, the movie would be far less interesting, the characters less compelling. Rather, I think Jamal wins love and money because of the kind of personal qualities that always advance fairy tale heroes and heroines towards happy outcomes. He is compassionate and loyal. He is persistent, clever, and a sort of “wise child”, savvy but sweetly innocent. He is sometimes hindered by these qualities; throughout the middle of the film, his more calculating and power-hungry brother seems to be the one getting ahead, but in the end, Jamal’s goodness wins him powerful allies who give him the crucial tools he needs.

Compare Cinderella, Snow White, and the whole multitude of other fairy tale characters. Same story, same type of characters. One might say of Slumdog Millionaire, as Bruno Bettleheim famously said of classic fairy tales, that it captures our attention because on a deep level it rings true.

Yes and no. Yes, children trying to survive in social contexts where the adults refuse to take responsibility for their care do need such qualities. But real children for whom society does not hold itself accountable are unlikely ever to develop those traits. How could someone so utterly brutalized by social circumstances remain consistently kind, compassionate, loyal and persistent? Psychology tells us character develops otherwise. Children who see the murders of those they love, who experience betrayal, poverty, and violence over and over, who are over-worked and given little time for play, are unlikely to turn out like Jamal (or Cinderella).

If we really want children to learn and grow to be citizens of a new, knowledge based economic order, then, we had better pay close attention not only to what children know but to how we treat them. (Education scholars have made this point elsewhere, but it has yet to win any of them 8 Academy Awards.) Fairy tales are able to ignore certain psychological realities. Prime ministers and education policy makers should not.

Obama's Educational Policy

ljwaks@yahoo.com (leonard waks) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:42:00 +0000

The Political Animal summarizes President Obama's March 10 address to the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, laying out the outlines of his educational policy. Here are the main points:

* Charters: Obama supports lifting caps in every state on the number of charter schools that may be opened, so long as firm and effective accountability guidelines are put in place;

* Curriculum: Obama supported higher educational standards. But his agenda stops short of pursuing national curriculum guidelines or tests, promising only "to promote efforts to enhance the rigor of state-level curriculum."

* Early childhood: Obama's budget provides incentive grants for states to develop uniform quality standards and target care and education to the most disadvantaged children.

* Performance pay: Obama did not directly support merit pay, but spoke broadly of of "recruiting, preparing, and rewarding outstanding teachers".

* The school calendar: Obama said that the conventional school calendar with its short days and long summer breaks, shaped for the needs of an agricultural society, no longer makes sense and places the US at a disadvantage compared to developed nations with longer school days and school years.

A few initial comments;

On charters, the problem is bringing the various states' charter laws into conformity with some standards that limit corporate corruption and narrow targeting of specific populations (often those with anti-democratic agendas) that fragment the public.

On curriculum, Mr Obama seems sensitive to the basic postulate that education is a reserved power of the states. As one comment in The Political Animal notes,

I'm a little rusty on this, but my memory from graduate school suggests the word education doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution of the U.S., but responsibility for it is in every state constitution.

Under our federal system the sdtates are supposed to function as "laboratories of democracy". Until the recent extension of federal power over education, the federal government had been very chary about usurping the educational perogatives of state governments. In addition, it is arguable that different states and regions, due to regional traditions and regional occupational emphases, need distinct curriculum emphases.

On the other hand, a rapidly changing national society needs to promote citizen geographic mobility, and this requires some degree of unification of grade by grade curriculum standards.

A curriculum policy sensitive to these conflicting considerations can only be worked out through close cooperation of state and federal policy makers, leaving the primary power in the hands of the states. However politically appealing, no top down regime such as NCLB can achieve the desired result.

Teacher performance policy must address two distinct issues: on the one hand, recruiting the best people into the teaching force and encouraging teacher enterprise; on the other, keeping weak people out of the teaching force and getting rid of poor teachers. Merit pay, in itself, can not achieve either. It can also be counter-productive in establishing a rigid measure of performance and thus blocking teacher enterprise.

Regarding the school calendar, the idea that the entrenched calendar is simply a holdover from the agricultural era is a howler. Old habits die hard, but where are the horses and buggies on the city streets today? They are gone because they no longer fit our lives. The calendar we have persists because in some ways, not all of them understood, it is in adjustment with our other institutions. For this reason alone I would be cautious about major changes.

But there are positive reasons for preserving something like our current calendar. Shorter school days allow children more time for their own pursuits and more free time with their families. Longer summer breaks ideally give children the vivid experiences of freedom and informal learning that they treasure for a lifetime. One commenter in The Political Animal wrote:

Obama seems to agree with the view that the purpose of America's education system is to create technically-skilled worker bees who will efficiently and productively compete with slave-wage labor in the developing world to fill whatever jobs the corporate aristocracy has for them.

Well, I don't think so, but the point is well taken. Obama said he knew that the idea of long school days and years was unpopular. The democratic ethos is deep in the United States, and the development of individual autonomy absolutely requires long periods of time free from bureaucratic control by school teachers or managers at work. Adults might be quick to keep their kids in school and avoid the inconvenience of arranging for child care, but how many of them are eager to give up their fond memories of their own summer vacations?

Another comment states:

. . . (what does) the ongoing calls for eliminating summer break do to family vacations, where quite frankly I taught my kids more than the schools were doing, and that was in Palo Alto?

The genuine problems here are to develop more efficient use of the school day and more effective use of the school after-school and summer educational programs for children whose overworked or distressed families can not provide informal enrichment activities for their childrens' free time.

Jefferson once wrote that "that government is best which governs least." I do not believe that that education is best which educates least, of course. But the best education carefully restricts its standardized formal component and assures adequate time for informal learning essential for the formation of autonomy and personal responsibility.

Please add your comments and write your own reactions to the Obama policy agenda.

Academic capitalism: College Acceptance Letters Glitzy - Rejection Letters Brutal

ljwaks@yahoo.com (leonard waks) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:31:00 +0000

In these economically perilous times colleges are more worried than ever that the most desirable students will reject them in favor of other suitors.

The response has been an upgrade in the acceptance "packages" set to students. As these get more glitzy the rejection letters (or emails!) are getting more brutal, according to an article today from the Associated Press and syndicated in Yahoo News.
AP: College admissions officers are jazzing up their acceptance notifications--sending out fancy certificates, T-shirts, tubes of confetti, or Internet links to videos of fireworks--in an effort to inspire loyalty and lock in commitments from today's fickle and worried high school seniors.

Some admissions officers say rising competition and the economic downturn are forcing them to devote more money and attention in paper acceptance packets. Worried that the economic downturn might scare some students away from private schools like St. Bonaventure, admissions director James M. DiRisio upgraded his college's T-shirt package this year.

Meanwhile, Rick Shaw, Stanford's director of admissions, says the college is trying to reduce waste by encouraging the 20,000 or so rejected applicants to take their bad news electronically, though it will send a formal letter if a student asks. "We are saving a lot of trees," he explained.

Fixing our National Education System

ljwaks@yahoo.com (leonard waks) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:36:00 +0000

Nicholas Kristof in a recent article, Our Greatest National Shame in the New York Times has declared that fixing our national educational system is even more important than fixing our national health system.

Kristof claims that many innovators are doing many of the right things at the K-8 level, though he is not certain that they can be "scaled up". The real problem he states is with High Schools.

What is the problem? First, great teachers count much more than anything else. The important attribute is a kind of 'withitness' that connects teachers to their charges. This counts more than prior education or intelligence or SAT scores.

Second, our current way of selecting teachers has nothing whatsoever to do with this. There is a huge disconnect between the marks of a promising teacher and the criteria we use (teacher certificates, Praxis exam scores). So we should scrap all of that! (That's a great idea, but for Kristof is merely a throwaway line).

Now, while noting that the disconnect between relevant criteria and actual selection practice exists primarily at the K-8 level and the real problem is with High School, he cannot seriously think that teaching algebra or physics or other demanding secondary school disciplines has more to do with 'withitness' than with understanding algebra or physics, which in turn must have something to do with prior educational achievements and even SAT scores.

Moreover, his solution to the problem is more effective measures for good teachers. I should think that this mistaken idea is how we got into all of this stuff about graduate record exams, certification require ments and Praxis exams in the first place.

How about a radical solution: stop measuring teachers. Go after a bunch of 'with it' folks, and for high schools, also very smart and highly educated ones. Rely on general criteria and human judgment to select them -- that's what 'with it' types do and trust.

That said, the “national educational system” Kristof refers to does not even exist, never has, and with any luck, never will. Unless I misread the constitution, education is a reserved power of the states.

The federal government has until recently been very chary about centralizing educational authority. It has tended to couch its interventions as aide to the states on issues of overwhelming national importance such as vocational education and national security.

No Child Left Behind and its kindred efforts are unconstitutional on their face, as many state level officials acknowledge. For the most part states have fallen in line because without federal money they cannot provide what a contemporary education requires. I do not know a single educational administrator at any level that thinks NCLB is anything but a disaster.

Where the federal government can be helpful is not in offering further intrusions into state educational efforts, more tresting requirements, more standardization, but rather in offering inducements to states to modernize the entire apparatus of state governance to establish "smart" educational networks much as we are now working on smart buildings and smart energy grids.

The best starting point is to realize that most of the really important learning resources from communications media to museums and universities, serve entire regions. The region, not the arbitrary school district, should be the organizing unit of smart schools. Let's encourage the states to establish regional consortia and to fade out the monopoly of the local school districts. As the central cities and suburbs become ever more differentiated by social class, the local districts are no more than the means to manage and perpetuate educational inequality.

Multi-district regional schools, under regional authority established by the states, have created amazing models for regional schools. The Harrisburg PA High School of Creative and Performing Arts, run by a consortium of 29 districts as a regional charter school, draws on all of the arts infrastructure of the region and draws kids from both poor central cities and rich suburbs. Internet technology can further enhance the scope and reach of schools under regional authority.

As in the case of charter schools, targeted federal incentives can move the states to create more of these regional solutions.

Meanwhile, pumping all of the stimulus money into "scaling up" ideas into coercive federal programs operating through the local districts only keeps gross educational inequality in place.

John Dewey and NRA CEO: Best Friends Forever?

noreply@blogger.com (David Waddington) — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:29:00 +0000

As most readers of this blog know, John Dewey isn't exactly a beloved figure in conservative America. Recently, Human Events Magazine asked a panel of scholars to vote on the "most dangerous books of the 19th and 20th century." Dewey's Democracy and Education showed up at #5 on the list, just behind Quotations from Chairman Mao and The Kinsey Report.

And so it was that I was quite surprised, while doing some research on the connection between Dewey and Thomas Jefferson, to discover a new edition of Dewey's little book on Jefferson (The Living Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson) published by Palladium Press, an "official affiliate of the NRA" and the publishers of a series of "immanently affordable" (perhaps after the recession?) titles known as the Firearms Classics Library.

The new edition features a fresh introduction by Wayne LaPierre (standing to the left of Cheney in the photo above), the current CEO of the National Rifle Association. LaPierre, as it turns out, is quite an interesting figure. In 1995, he referred to federal agents as "jackbooted thugs", which prompted former President G.H.W. Bush to resign from the NRA. Today, in addition to his NRA duties, he is the current host of Crime Strike, a television show "which fills in the details where Cops and America's Most Wanted fail." (One wonders: what exactly is the intellectual space that Crime Strike occupies?)

Now, if LaPierre were a passionate dyed-in-the-wool fan of Dewey's work, it would be extremely surprising. As it turns out, however, LaPierre didn't introduce Dewey's little book out of any affection for Dewey, but rather out of affection for Jefferson. The Living Thoughts is simply a collection of remarks by Jefferson that Dewey felt were particularly notable. For a variety of reasons, Jefferson appeals to a wide political spectrum, and Palladium Press and LaPierre must have felt that The Living Thoughts was an appealing collection.

There is a certain deliciousness about all of this. Dewey didn't select the remarks found in The Living Thoughts haphazardly; he selected them because they were, from his perspective, especially notable and worthwhile. By republishing Dewey's selections, then, LaPierre and Palladium endorsed (albeit perhaps unwittingly) a Deweyan spin on Jefferson.

All of this is just a trivial bit of fun. But the book that underlies it, The Living Thoughts, is worthy of more attention, as is Dewey's connection to Jefferson. Why did Dewey choose particular Jefferson selections that he did? Did reading Jefferson have any kind of an influence on Dewey? I've been starting to look into these questions recently. Hopefully, the answers that turn up will be interesting.

Open the gates: Immigration as economic recovery?

noreply@blogger.com (Barbara Stengel) — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:25:00 +0000

As so many of us, I am attending to economic issues these days. In truth, I just can’t escape them. I read a description of the “Obama plan” and pay careful attention to what the plan might mean for schools (through support to states and special ed funding). Or I watch Congressional hearings with overpaid and unsuccessful CEOs and am appalled. (Is “appalled” strong enough?) Or I check the weekly email that my investment company sends and simply refuse to wrap my head around what that means for my personal (lack of) net worth. Mostly, I remember that I am being paid for a job I love, lock into an attitude of gratitude, and remind myself to be more generous than I ever have been in a time when many others have little to give. Sometimes, though not often, I read something sensible. I read something sensible the other day and it resonated with some Dewey “discovery” I was doing for another project.

Tom Friedman’s NY Times column on February 11^th (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/opinion/11friedman.html) suggested that one answer to our economic woes was to loosen immigration limitations, especially for those who are highly talented in skills and ideas that can fuel entrepreneurial efforts and spark new industries. He says he got this idea from an Indian national who notes that many Indians, Chinese and Koreans have the educational background and the will to work hard in the American tradition.

Friedman says this:

While his tongue was slightly in cheek, Gupta and many other Indian business people I spoke to this week were trying to make a point that sometimes non-Americans can make best: “Dear America, please remember how you got to be the wealthiest country in history. It wasn’t through protectionism, or state-owned banks or fearing free trade. No, the formula was very simple: build this really flexible, really open economy, tolerate creative destruction so dead capital is quickly redeployed to better ideas and companies, pour into it the most diverse, smart and energetic immigrants from every corner of the world and then stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat.”

After reading Friedman’s editorial, I happened to delving into Dewey’s Correspondence. I came across this from a letter in 1919 to Professor Raymond Moley, a recent Columbia Ph.D. Dewey was talking specifically about the Polish Study in Philadelphia but more generally about attitudes toward immigration:

"My own conclusions, personal, are not optimistic, and I don’t think there will be any improvement till the Americans get over their optimistic complacency, and their unwillingness to tell the truth in writing about the immigrant question. The complacency consists in regarding the immigrants as constituting the problem and Americanization simply as a problem of assimilating them. Going by what we learned as a sample, the following problem is almost wholly one of reforming the environment of America into which the foreigners come. This isn’t easy because the church and the big business interests cooperate with the politicians to keep the immigrants isolated and therefore in easy subjection …”

Friedman and Dewey are both asking us to reform “the environment of America” and to understand that immigrants are not and have never been the problem. I confess that I resonate to Friedman’s “solution.” I want to open the borders, not control them, and certainly not to shut them. I don’t understand how “free markets” can be the answer to improving schooling within the US but not the answer to improving economic functioning. Open up the borders, grant the visas, and let’s see who can create new businesses and new jobs. The people who emigrate to the US will come because there is opportunity here. That’s what we represent. And those with the energy and ideas to create opportunities for themselves will almost surely create economic possibilities for those among us who simply want to work for a wage.

Oh, and on a slightly different, but surely related topic, I came across this from a letter Dewey wrote to his children from Japan in 1920 about social and economic conditions in that country:

"There is no doubt a great change is going on, how permanent it will be depends a good deal upon how the rest of the world behaves. If it doesn’t live up to its peaceful and democratic professions, the conservative bureaucrats and militarists who of course are still very strong will say we told you so and there will be a big backset. But if other countries and especially our own behaves decently, the democratizing here will go on as steadily and as rapidly as is desirable."

Here’s how I read it … and I agree. The best (and first) thing the United States can do to encourage democratic interaction and economic freedom is to model that in every way possible. We have some work to do …

Education Spending in the Obama Stimulus Bill

ljwaks@yahoo.com (leonard waks) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:36:00 +0000

From Chris bowers at Open Left comes this useful sumary of the education items in the stiumlus package:

Education for the 21st Century:

Economists tell us that strategic investments in education are one of the best ways to help America become more productive and competitive. This bill will make key investments to help states avoid teacher layoffs and other damaging education cuts in this recession, help make college more affordable, and make other key education investments.

Preventing Teacher Layoffs and Education Cuts by the States

Prevents teacher layoffs and other cutbacks in education and other key services, by establishing a $53.6 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, including $40.6 billion to local school districts using existing funding formulas, which can be used for preventing cutbacks, preventing layoffs, school modernization, or other purposes; $5 billion to states as bonus grants for meeting key performance measures in education; and $8 billion to states for other high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education.

Making College More Affordable

Increases the higher education tax credit to a maximum of $2,500. Also makes it available to nearly 4 million low-income students who had not had any access to the higher education tax credit in the past - by making it partially refundable.

Increases the maximum Pell Grant by $500, for a maximum of $5,350 in 2009 and $5,550 in 2010.

Adds $200 million to the vital College Work-Study program.

Investing in Early Childhood Development

Provides $1.1 billion for Early Head Start and $1 billion for Head Start, which provide comprehensive development services to low-income infants and preschool children - thereby providing services for 110,000 additional infants and children.

Provides $2 billion for the Child Care Development Block Grant to provide child care services to an additional 300,000 children in low-income families while their parents go to work.

Providing Other Key Education Investments

Provides $13 billion for Title I grants to help disadvantaged kids reach high academic standards - ensuring that in this period of tight state and local budgets these vital services are maintained.

Provides $12.2 billion for grants for IDEA (Special Education) to increase the federal share of these costs, and prevent these mandatory costs from forcing states to cut other areas of education.

Where are Teachers' Voices in the National Education Debate?

noreply@blogger.com (Lorraine Kasprisin) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:34:00 +0000

From the Bellingham Herald http://www.bellinghamherald.com/291/story/786150.html

Print version - Sunday, February 8, 2009

Feb, 7, 2009

Where are teachers' voices in national education debate?

LORRAINE KASPRISIN / THE BELLINGHAM HERALD

Discussions surrounding the problems public schools face have become dichotomized in the national debate with teachers increasingly demonized and their professional expertise belittled and often ignored. The recent disagreements over the choice of a new Secretary of Education in the Obama administration along with the petitions that were circulated reveal the immense animosity and polarization of that debate.

Rather than a rational conversation on a direction for alleviating the problems that face the public schools, the problem has been presented as a great showdown between the forces of "good and evil." Even the mainstream media were not immune to this seduction. Newspapers and magazines like the New York Times and the New Republic have presented the decision over a new Secretary of Education as a battle between the "new reformers" and the "old establishment.

"Who are the new reformers? Apparently from these publications, they are the outsiders who wish to see the schools privatized and turned into a commodity on the free market. They cry out for high-stakes testing, accountability measures, merit pay for teachers, vouchers, and the expansion of charter school experiments. Who is the "old establishment?" They are the teachers and their unions, the education schools who educate them, and the local school districts that represent the public. They are seen as advocates for things like more equitable funding and smaller class size.

Nowhere in this debate do we really hear the voice of teachers whose relationship with children, their parents and the community are carried out everyday on the grassroots level. Ultimately, it is their actions in the classroom with children, and the understanding they bring from their professional knowledge and experiences that will really make a difference in the achievement of children.

How do we reconstruct the public debate that brings in their voice? With this in mind, I would like to raise six questions for readers to consider if we are to redirect the public debate.

-- Why are individual teachers often acknowledged while teachers collectively often demonized? The teachers union has been projected as a huge monolithic power structure that resists any reform on behalf of children. Unions, of course, are the mechanism that workers in our society have for a chance at equal participation in the power structure. Why are teachers as workers seen as such a threat to a schooling system of a capitalist society?

-- Why are professional expertise and training seen as a threat to reform? Why can't we talk about the nature of the professional knowledge that is required to teach effectively in a multi-cultural, multi-racial democratic society that is constantly reinventing itself? How can the institutional structures that are politically set, and out of the control of teachers, be made to be more conducive with what teachers know about the developmental learning stages of their students? Without a serious conversation at this level, the charges and counter-charges are useless and banal.

-- Why does so much of the discussion on teacher incentives rely on a business or corporate model? The assumption that if teachers receive merit pay, they will perform better has been repeated as an unexamined mantra throughout these debates. Of course, teachers should get more pay. But all teachers deserve a decent wage for what they do. Are teachers going to be more motivated because they earn more than the teachers down the hall? Perhaps, what inspires teachers' work is the support they receive, the respect they have earned, the opportunities to learn more from each other as part of their daily work, the collegiality with their colleagues in purposeful dialogue and goal setting, and the voice of the profession in decision-making over meaningful changes that will bring about real achievements for children.John Goodlad, the longtime critic of American schools, has called this process "educational renewal" as opposed to "educational reform."

-- Why are experiments like new charter schools articulated in the public debate as the prerogative of one side only? In reality, many teachers across the nation participate in these initiatives and are part of these experiments.

-- Why is the high-stakes accountability movement allowed to appropriate and dominate the language of accountability?In today's climate, to argue against high-stakes testing and its effects is seen as an argument against accountability itself and used as an example of the status-quo. Why can't we take a serious look at what accountability can and should entail as a moral responsibility to assure equal chances for all our students rather than success on a high-stakes test?

-- Why can't we openly and honestly discuss the class disparities in this country and the legitimate concerns of parents and communities over the achievement gaps in student populations without using it for exploitation and a pretext for privatization and corporate gains?

-- Why can't we openly and honestly debate the public purposes of schooling in America? If advocates for the privatization of schooling really want to take public education in this direction, then let's debate what that means for the future of this nation's public school experiment.

At the beginning of President Obama's new administration that harbingers change and collaboration, a new national conversation is needed that brings all voices to the table. The dichotomization, polarization, simplification, and demonization must give way to a new, more inclusive public conversation that includes the voice of teachers and their communities on a grassroots level.

Lorraine Kasprisin is a professor in the Woodring College of Education at Western Washington University. She is also president of the Educational Institute for Democratic Renewal and editor of "Journal of Educational Controversy."