Reading and watching the news lately has brought two things to mind. One is a saying in education: For every step forward that a student takes, he takes two steps back once he is removed from the moment. The other is from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (Abrams v United States, 1919) in which he set the stage for what later became known as the "marketplace of ideas," a belief that truth or good policies always win out over lies or bad policies.
In November 2008 we took a major step forward, electing the first black President of the United States. This historic moment turned the world's eyes toward America in a positive way. The election of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th president seemed to announce that the ideas and principles the Founding Fathers set down more than two centuries ago had finally come true. America, it seemed, had fulfilled her promise.
But as we head into the midterm elections this year, we are slipping backward, falling behind even where we were some 21 months ago. The Tea Party has risen from the muck of the political arena, giving face, voice and comfort to so much that is wrong with America. Racist pandering and fear mongering has again replaced ideas and truth. We are seeing the nightmarish side of democracy, where fairness is trumped by political expediency.
Just look at several incidents across the country. Ron Ramsey, the Republican lieutenant governor trying to be governor of Tennessee, recently told an audience that Islam may be a cult. According to Ramsey, he wonders whether Islam "is actually a religion or is it a nationality, way of life or cult, whatever you want to call it."
In Gainesville, FL, the Dove World Outreach Center, a non-denominational church, has announced that the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks will be “International Burn a Koran Day.” The church’s pastor, Terry Jones, who is also the author of a book titled "Islam is of the Devil," said, “We feel, as Christians, one of our jobs is to warn,” according to an article by The Religion News Service. Jones added that the goal of these and other protests are to give Muslims an opportunity to convert, the news service reported.
Jones and his church are not alone. Ramsey's quote came on the same day as a protest against the building of a mosque outside the town of Murfreesboro, TN. A similar battle rages in New York City where Muslims hope to build a mosque in lower Manhattan, not that far from the former World Trade Center site.
It doesn't stop there. Conservative operatives disguised as journalist distributed misinformation about Shirley Sherrod, a black USDA official, in hopes of discrediting the NAACP and embarrassing the White House. The Tea Party in Iowa likened Obama to Hitler, while some of its followers have engaged in racially-motivated personal attacks on political leaders.
Amazingly, the hate mongers cite religion and the Founding Fathers when making their arguments. The idea that Christians, who protest over anything that they see as an attack on their religion, would even discuss burning the holy book of another religion is beyond the pale. Yet, it is what we have become -- a people blinded by hatred and poisoned by venom.
Each day we take another step back while the marketplace is flooded with tainted products. We can only hope that Holmes was right -- truth and good policies will eventually win out.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Learning From Charter Schools
The debate continues to rage as if the answers are all in black or white. Yet, when it comes to the role of charter schools in the educational process, the answers are not simple. It is seldom that people can look at the issue without becoming polemic, either offering anti-union screeds or making it sound as if charter schools are the educational version of a Faustian bargain.
Tod Roberson's piece in the Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-robberson_11edi.State.Edition1.bdf5ee.html) is an example of someone possibly giving charter schools more credence than deserved. In fact, Roberson’s opinion article is probably more interesting for what it does not say than for what it does say.
While charter schools have increased performance in some districts, they are not the panacea that advocates suggest. Nor are they the scourge that detractors portray. What Roberson lists as good charter school methods are simple "best practices" in pedagogy: Classroom management, discipline, incentives, group study, high standards and jigsawing.
The differences with charter and non-charter schools often have more to do with the flexibility that charters enjoy. For example, most charter schools get to pick students, as opposed to neighborhood schools in which no student in the area can be denied a seat. Charter schools often can send problem students packing for failure to comply with the rules of decorum. Most neighborhood schools cannot. Charter schools also do not have to adhere to the union contract, and some do not have to take the same standardized tests as neighborhood schools. While principals often micromanage even down to the "flow of the day" in neighborhood schools, charters often give teachers greater freedom to adjust instruction to fit student needs. Allowing teachers to adjust curriculum or instruction to fit student needs as opposed to a timetable is simply good educational practice. In addition, most public schools have gone through so many convoluted adjustments of the curriculum that it is hard for teachers to keep track. (The recent push by conservatives in Texas on the Social Studies curriculum is a good example.)
The problem is not necessarily the union, though many locals do not help in developing charter schools. Let us be frank: The role of the teachers union, like any other union, is to protect its members, not to promote the industry in which members work. Journalists often go to public unions for comment, but the fire, police, teacher and hospital unions are not there to improve those departments or agencies, but rather to keep the government from abusing members. (And unions have always withheld support from politicians who do not do labor’s biddings.) So why do we expect the teachers union to be any different than the United Auto Workers or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters?
In addition, people who often write about charter school successes fail to document charter school failures. Many charter schools have failed for the same reasons that neighborhood schools continue to struggle – poor management. There is often a lack of a concrete analysis or a detailed examination of charter school curriculums. In Roberson’s piece, for instance, it would have been nice if he had spent less time criticizing the union and more time explaining what he called "the general concept of a Harlem Children's Zone approach." Also, he could have explained in more detail what SLANT stands for and the reasons for it. (I believe it is from the KIPP schools and it is used to teach students how to listen.) Good teaching methods are not relegated to charter schools and are not a non-union versus union issue. In NYC, the teacher's union has started a charter school, though results are still out, and in Detroit teachers plan to open a principal-less school in September.
So if charter schools are not the do all and be all, then how do we improve the education system? For one, we must seek to remove as many politicians from the mix as possible. Whenever politicians are involved the emphasis is on everything but education. In Detroit where the school board is fighting an emergency financial manager for system control the last few months have been spent talking about a school board president who cannot write a coherent sentence. (That now former board president was also accused of fondling himself during meetings with the female superintendent.) In New York City some time ago, the animosity between one former schools chancellor and members of the board of education escalated to the point that the chancellor referred to a board member as a “political whore.” And in Texas, as I said earlier, conservatives voted to make the Social Studies curriculum kinder and gentler to conservative causes.
Once we remove the politicians then we must allow educators greater flexibility inside schools. That means that principals and other administrators cannot continue to micromanage each classroom. We must also recognize that while SLANT may work in KIPP, for example, it may not work in another school. But any school that believes a SLANT-like program can help students should be allowed to try. At the same time, if a school believes that the Teachers College writing program better suits students then that school should be allowed to add the program. And we must look at school start and end times. Recent studies have shown that teenagers perform better when schools start later, while elementary school students perform better when schools start earlier in the day. Yet changing school start and end times, as well as the length of the school year, would be met with immediate rejection from most adults who depend on the schools for childcare.
But the first thing we must do is tamp down the rhetoric and allow for pedagogical ideas to be floated, experimented with and discarded when unsuccessful. And we need to remember that the key to a good education is critical thinking and problem solving skills, not test taking.
Tod Roberson's piece in the Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-robberson_11edi.State.Edition1.bdf5ee.html) is an example of someone possibly giving charter schools more credence than deserved. In fact, Roberson’s opinion article is probably more interesting for what it does not say than for what it does say.
While charter schools have increased performance in some districts, they are not the panacea that advocates suggest. Nor are they the scourge that detractors portray. What Roberson lists as good charter school methods are simple "best practices" in pedagogy: Classroom management, discipline, incentives, group study, high standards and jigsawing.
The differences with charter and non-charter schools often have more to do with the flexibility that charters enjoy. For example, most charter schools get to pick students, as opposed to neighborhood schools in which no student in the area can be denied a seat. Charter schools often can send problem students packing for failure to comply with the rules of decorum. Most neighborhood schools cannot. Charter schools also do not have to adhere to the union contract, and some do not have to take the same standardized tests as neighborhood schools. While principals often micromanage even down to the "flow of the day" in neighborhood schools, charters often give teachers greater freedom to adjust instruction to fit student needs. Allowing teachers to adjust curriculum or instruction to fit student needs as opposed to a timetable is simply good educational practice. In addition, most public schools have gone through so many convoluted adjustments of the curriculum that it is hard for teachers to keep track. (The recent push by conservatives in Texas on the Social Studies curriculum is a good example.)
The problem is not necessarily the union, though many locals do not help in developing charter schools. Let us be frank: The role of the teachers union, like any other union, is to protect its members, not to promote the industry in which members work. Journalists often go to public unions for comment, but the fire, police, teacher and hospital unions are not there to improve those departments or agencies, but rather to keep the government from abusing members. (And unions have always withheld support from politicians who do not do labor’s biddings.) So why do we expect the teachers union to be any different than the United Auto Workers or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters?
In addition, people who often write about charter school successes fail to document charter school failures. Many charter schools have failed for the same reasons that neighborhood schools continue to struggle – poor management. There is often a lack of a concrete analysis or a detailed examination of charter school curriculums. In Roberson’s piece, for instance, it would have been nice if he had spent less time criticizing the union and more time explaining what he called "the general concept of a Harlem Children's Zone approach." Also, he could have explained in more detail what SLANT stands for and the reasons for it. (I believe it is from the KIPP schools and it is used to teach students how to listen.) Good teaching methods are not relegated to charter schools and are not a non-union versus union issue. In NYC, the teacher's union has started a charter school, though results are still out, and in Detroit teachers plan to open a principal-less school in September.
So if charter schools are not the do all and be all, then how do we improve the education system? For one, we must seek to remove as many politicians from the mix as possible. Whenever politicians are involved the emphasis is on everything but education. In Detroit where the school board is fighting an emergency financial manager for system control the last few months have been spent talking about a school board president who cannot write a coherent sentence. (That now former board president was also accused of fondling himself during meetings with the female superintendent.) In New York City some time ago, the animosity between one former schools chancellor and members of the board of education escalated to the point that the chancellor referred to a board member as a “political whore.” And in Texas, as I said earlier, conservatives voted to make the Social Studies curriculum kinder and gentler to conservative causes.
Once we remove the politicians then we must allow educators greater flexibility inside schools. That means that principals and other administrators cannot continue to micromanage each classroom. We must also recognize that while SLANT may work in KIPP, for example, it may not work in another school. But any school that believes a SLANT-like program can help students should be allowed to try. At the same time, if a school believes that the Teachers College writing program better suits students then that school should be allowed to add the program. And we must look at school start and end times. Recent studies have shown that teenagers perform better when schools start later, while elementary school students perform better when schools start earlier in the day. Yet changing school start and end times, as well as the length of the school year, would be met with immediate rejection from most adults who depend on the schools for childcare.
But the first thing we must do is tamp down the rhetoric and allow for pedagogical ideas to be floated, experimented with and discarded when unsuccessful. And we need to remember that the key to a good education is critical thinking and problem solving skills, not test taking.
Friday, July 9, 2010
The Foolishness of Wooing
The featured performance in the center ring of this year's National Basketball Association three-ring, free-agent circus is done. We are now left with lesser performances in the other rings, large clowns squeezing into small cars for bigger money. LeBron James' decision Thursday to move from the shores of Lake Erie to the shores of Biscayne Bay brought an end to the most enticingly hyped free agent summer in recent history. Not since 2000 -- when Grant Hill, Tracy McGrady and Tim Duncan became unencumbered players -- has the off season stirred so much excitement and specualtion.
While Hill and McGrady (free agents again this year) joined the Orlando Magic in hopes of building an NBA dynasty, Duncan chose to return to San Antonio. Hill barely played in Orlando because of injuries, and McGrady was left to carry the team alone. A decade later, James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh decided to pull off what the class of 2000 could not. They have joined forces, hoping to find in each other what they couldn't find in lesser teammates.
Things should work out better in Miami. James, Wade and Bosh are healthy, three young stars seeking to be just average Joes. Team players. The question becomes when will they win their first championship together? Who will be the master of this three-headed animal? Unlike other situations in which high scoring, dominant players have joined forces, Miami's triumvirate has unselfish players. James and Bosh apparently had tired of carrying the load for their respective teams, of being leaders charged with making their teammates better. So they joined Wade's team in hopes that he will make them champions. Wade, the ring master, now has what he wanted -- a strong supporting cast. Pat Riley also has what he wanted. One must now wonder how long will it be before Riley leaves the front office and sends his coach, Erik Spoelstra, packing.
The Heat have already changed the roster on their Web site. So have the Cleveland Cavaliers. But questions still remain. Who will be paid the most in Miami -- Wade, James or Bosh? Will Udonis Haslem return and for how little? Cleveland, which lost the biggest prize of the summer, only has a few free agents. But can the team that couldn't win with James win without him? Will Shaquille O'Neal and Zydrunas Ilgauskas come back? Does Cleveland want them back?
Meanwhile, the New York Knicks and the other teams that chucked big contracts in an effort to grab James have left themselves with little with which to compete. Two years of basketball down the drain. At least the free-agency hype has ended, though it will now be replaced by idiocy.
Just look at Minnesota, Milwaukee, Memphis, Atlanta, Toronto and the Knicks. Minnesota has offered Darko Milicic about $6 million a year. Milwaukee has promised roughly the same amount to Drew Gooden. Memphis offered Rudy Gay a maximum contract, and Atlanta did the same with Joe Johnson. Toronto gave Amir Johnson about $6 million a year. And the Knicks, who spent years getting out from under bad contracts, signed Amare Stoudemire to a 5-year, nearly $100 million deal.
Basketball power has shifted. New York, once the preeminent location, is a joke to many in the league. Los Angeles and Miami have the star power now. Hollywood East and Hollywood West. While many, most notably NBA commissioner David Stern, see this week's developments as good for NBA coffers and television ratings, teams in smaller markets have to wonder. Can Minnesota, Detroit, Memphis, Oaklahoma City or Portland counteract the glamour of LA and South Beach?
I doubt it. Luckily for most NBA teams, not every player wants to be a sidekick, to ride someone else's coattails. Some want to lead their own teams. Something James and Bosh couldn't or wouldn't do.
While Hill and McGrady (free agents again this year) joined the Orlando Magic in hopes of building an NBA dynasty, Duncan chose to return to San Antonio. Hill barely played in Orlando because of injuries, and McGrady was left to carry the team alone. A decade later, James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh decided to pull off what the class of 2000 could not. They have joined forces, hoping to find in each other what they couldn't find in lesser teammates.
Things should work out better in Miami. James, Wade and Bosh are healthy, three young stars seeking to be just average Joes. Team players. The question becomes when will they win their first championship together? Who will be the master of this three-headed animal? Unlike other situations in which high scoring, dominant players have joined forces, Miami's triumvirate has unselfish players. James and Bosh apparently had tired of carrying the load for their respective teams, of being leaders charged with making their teammates better. So they joined Wade's team in hopes that he will make them champions. Wade, the ring master, now has what he wanted -- a strong supporting cast. Pat Riley also has what he wanted. One must now wonder how long will it be before Riley leaves the front office and sends his coach, Erik Spoelstra, packing.
The Heat have already changed the roster on their Web site. So have the Cleveland Cavaliers. But questions still remain. Who will be paid the most in Miami -- Wade, James or Bosh? Will Udonis Haslem return and for how little? Cleveland, which lost the biggest prize of the summer, only has a few free agents. But can the team that couldn't win with James win without him? Will Shaquille O'Neal and Zydrunas Ilgauskas come back? Does Cleveland want them back?
Meanwhile, the New York Knicks and the other teams that chucked big contracts in an effort to grab James have left themselves with little with which to compete. Two years of basketball down the drain. At least the free-agency hype has ended, though it will now be replaced by idiocy.
Just look at Minnesota, Milwaukee, Memphis, Atlanta, Toronto and the Knicks. Minnesota has offered Darko Milicic about $6 million a year. Milwaukee has promised roughly the same amount to Drew Gooden. Memphis offered Rudy Gay a maximum contract, and Atlanta did the same with Joe Johnson. Toronto gave Amir Johnson about $6 million a year. And the Knicks, who spent years getting out from under bad contracts, signed Amare Stoudemire to a 5-year, nearly $100 million deal.
Basketball power has shifted. New York, once the preeminent location, is a joke to many in the league. Los Angeles and Miami have the star power now. Hollywood East and Hollywood West. While many, most notably NBA commissioner David Stern, see this week's developments as good for NBA coffers and television ratings, teams in smaller markets have to wonder. Can Minnesota, Detroit, Memphis, Oaklahoma City or Portland counteract the glamour of LA and South Beach?
I doubt it. Luckily for most NBA teams, not every player wants to be a sidekick, to ride someone else's coattails. Some want to lead their own teams. Something James and Bosh couldn't or wouldn't do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)