The Sacred Profession

“[The school] I imagine has much more open, collaborative workspaces. I imagine the students come in, and they work with their mentors. Their mentors will be both students, possibly older students or students who have shown maturity, and the master teachers. They will set goals. Based on those goals that they are trying to achieve, they have a rough allocation of how they might want to be spending their time. One day a student might want to go deep on trigonometry. Then, he or she might spend two weeks researching some problem in biology or writing a short story.”

– Salman Khan, founder of the online video tutorial site Khan’s Academy

The consensus is building for a new kind of school model! Check out this interview with Salman Khan from The Smithsonian.

The case being argued in front of the Supreme Court today is the result of a lawsuit brought by a white student, Abigail Fisher, who was denied admission to the University of Texas in 2008. That same year a young black woman, Tedra Jacobs, with a similar academic record as Fisher was accepted. My sister-in-law Sarah Garland (who is sitting inside the Supreme Court right now listening to arguments!) has a new article posted over at The Atlantic that looks at Jacobs’ story. She shows how affirmative action can be tremendously helpful as well as explores reasons why it does not always serve as the equalizer it was designed to be (click here to read it).

No, that isn’t the US congressional building – it’s the Texas State Capitol (but Texas’ building is bigger, naturally)

This past year public schools in Texas were hit with the double whammy of a $5 billion dollar cut from education funds as well as the roll out of a new higher stakes testing system called STAAR. Under the new testing system students will be tested more frequently and for more subjects; additionally, results will be linked to promotion and graduation requirements. The exams were developed to align with new “College and Career” standards however from what I’ve seen these standards are a far cry from providing more conceptional learning rooted in critical thinking and strong literacy skills.

At the same time Texas has held off from applying for Race to the Top funds and only just submitted a waver for NCLB; however, many experts predict the waver will be denied due to it’s lack of compliance in terms of standards rigor and teacher evaluations. Add to this the fact Texas is one of only four states not adapting the Common Core Standards and it is sometimes easy to get a little down. Texas Tribune reporter Morgan Smith wrote a great article exploring the relationship between increased testing and decreased funding to teacher burnout (check it out here).

Because of the tight link between eduction and local control and funding Texans, and those living in other states, need to make sure we know how our representatives are voting on education. And so here’s a quick reminder for my fellow Texans: today is the last day to register to vote in Texas. Click here to get it done http://GottaRegister.com/

As a social studies teacher, there are few things I love more than the presidential debates. I love that the challenger can stand on the same stage as the leader of the free world and make snarky comments! I love how the audience promises to be silent! I love the procedure of it – the moderator uses a timer! The candidates have notes! The questions are not released before hand! In the era of canned sound bites and identical stump speeches (seriously, check it out) it is enormously refreshing to hear the candidates speak about domestic issues without teleprompters or handlers. We know what Obama would do with education because, in some way or another, we have all felt the impact of Race To The Top and NCLB wavers over the past four years. Let’s take a deeper look at Romney’s ideas on education.

First of all, they’re pretty similar to the president’s. Romney praised the work of Arnie Duncan in last night’s debate and expressed his support for the work the Department of Education has done with “raising the bar” for states and local school districts by providing incentives at the federal level. However, he was also adamant about the key role state and local government play in making decisions about schools. Romney suggested a few different ideas but let’s look at two: 1) federal funding “following” students from one school to another and 2) grading schools, as Florida under Jeb Bush did, on an A – F scale inorder to “give parents options for their kids.”

We have a decentralized education system in the United States. In the same way local government, often school boards, are the main decision-makers for US schools, state and local governments also raise most of their schools’ funds. Only about 10 cents of every dollar spent on schools actually comes from the federal government. Additionally, federal funds – unlike state and local funds – are given out on a per student basis. Federal monies are often attached to specific programs like Title 1 or legislation like IDEA and therefore those funds would be really difficult to tease out on a student by student basis. This gets tricky because federal funds are more frequently linked to students with special needs or circumstances (disabilities, poverty, ELL, etc.) – students are not receiving equal amounts of money from the federal government. Typically this isn’t a problem: a student with Down syndrome has very specific needs that make her more expensive to educate than her classmates without IEPs. While this is certainly not equal it is fair; it make sense. But what happens to the special education teacher that supports the student with Down syndrome on a one-to-one basis when another child’s parents in the same school choose to move him to a school across town? As someone who has spent 7 of my 10 years in a charter school I am certainly for some school choice, but I think money must be moved at a local, not federal, level.

I am also extremely wary of a federal grading system for schools. I deeply believe parents and students should be the evaluators of the education they receive (see my reflection on teacher evaluation and the possible role of parents here). While districts and potentially states might be able to release comparisons of various schools within their jurisdictions, comparing across state lines in a simplified letter grade system seems like creating a letter grade system for athletes across all sports. Lebron James and Gabby Douglas are both world class athletes but for hugely different reasons and in vastly different sports. Can you image one rubric that would effectively encompass all of what makes them exceptional at their respective sports? And now consider one rubric for all schools across the United States. Would the grade be linked to test scores? If so, which tests? ACT or SAT? Then what does that mean if my kid is in elementary and I want to know if my daughter’s teacher is any good?

What I find so surprising about Romney’s proposals is how much they rely on the power of the federal government. He’s a Republican for petesake! What happened to returning power to the states? I certainly think the federal government can play an important role in raising the bar for states who are reluctant to takle education reform – as Race To The Top did and as Common Core implementation will – but that role should be limited. Let’s leave funding and evaluation largely in the control of the people who have the most to gain or lose from their children’s schools.

“How many billions of dollars of public money have we spent on motivational speakers, experts, and “learning experiences” for teachers? And what good has it done? What results do we have to show? Nothing.”

– Mayor Michael Bloomberg, at Education Nation

One of the skills teachers quickly learn to master is that of appearing to pay attention during professional development while actually grading papers, or inputting grades, or writing lesson plans, or creating handouts, or any number of tasks that are 100 times more pressing than listening to a presenter read her power point slide after Comic Sans font slide. Who hasn’t been asked a question out of the blue? You look up from your 2nd period quizzes, meet the eyes of the presenter and watch a little smile spread across her face – “Gotch ya.” Indeed.

If you’re anything like me, you’ve attended some (LOTS!) of not-so-amazing PD sessions. What if teachers could create, run and then choose what sessions to attend? This is the gist of the idea behind what is called EdCamp, a “non-conference” run by teachers and for teachers that centers around the main belief that teachers (not venders or PD companies looking to make a quick buck) have knowledge worth sharing with each other. Check out this provocative article from Harvard’s Education Letter to read more about EdCamp.

One of the events I attended last week at Education Nation in New York was the premiere of the movie Won’t Back Down. As a high school teacher, you might be surprised to learn it was the first time I’ve ever been to a movie premiere complete with a red carpet, actual movie stars, and outraged protestors. In order to get into the theater I had to weave my way around a police line and a large (50+/-) group of protestors wearing AFT shirts and chanting, among other things, “Don’t Back Down, get out of town.” There was all the free popcorn you could eat and big cups of Coke. I sat within sight of education stars like Michelle Rhee (7 seats away!) and actual stars Jake Gyllenhaal (10 rows away!).

Earlier that day I listened to a pannel discussion with Viola Davis (who stars as a teacher), Maggie Gyllenhaal (who plays an activist parent), Rosie Perez (who also plays a teacher), and the director of Won’t Back DownDaniel Barnz.

My less-than-amazing cell-phone picture of the panel discussion on Won’t Back Down

Much of the conversation centered around accusations the film is “anti-union” and “teacher bashing” – claims everyone on the panel adamantly denied. The director is the son of a teacher and long-time New York city principal and was inspired to co-write the film in part by his mother’s work. Likewise, Gyllenhaal and Davis seemed a little stunned to find themselves in the middle of controversy. They both said something to the effect of “this is a film about two people who decide to change things for the better . . . it isn’t a political statement.” Needless to say, as I pushed through the protestors I was interested to see if the movie would live up to the negative hype. And the verdict? This is not a teacher bashing movie.

The movie follows the struggles of teacher and a parent trying to takeover their local school through parent trigger laws. There are heart-wrenching scenes between mothers and children, there are quirky line-dance numbers involving tipsy teachers, there are several scenes of Hollywood-awesome classroom instruction, and there is a sexy, ukulele-playing love interest teacher. I laughed, I cried; granted, I do both of the above really easily but overall it was an enjoyable flick. What is was not was a carefully orchestrated piece of propaganda designed to disempower teachers everywhere. There were numerous scenes where characters discussed the critical importance of both teachers and their unions. Was it oversimplified? Yes. But when was the last time you went to the movies for a carefully articulated explanation of anything? We did not go see The Pirates of the Caribbean to learn about the historical issues surrounding 19th century buccaneers nor did we see Transformers to gain insight into future technology.

Oversimplification becomes a problem when it has dangerous implications (ex. racist portrayals of slap-happy people of color in early 20th century films like Gone With the Wind); however, Won’t Back Down humanizes teachers and makes us root for parents trying to get a better education for their children. There are even attempts at nuance. For example, the love interest teacher is both a Teach For America alumni AND an adamant supporter of his union – ooh, the complexity! Frankly, it was refreshing to see a teacher movie deviate from the well-worn plot of teacher, often white female teacher, saves students of color (Dangerous Minds, Freedom Writers, Lean on Me, Stand and Deliver, etc.)

On the other hand, the teachers’ union was certainly the bad guy. They actively fought against the heroines and stooped to bribery and slander. I winced when the assistant to the union president recited the quote questionably attributed to the former president of the AFT Albert Shanker: “When children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interest of school children.” This line of thinking assumes what is good for teachers is not always good for children. I would argue the welfare of teachers is inextricably linked to the effective education of children – when we elevate the teaching profession we secure an excellent education for students. Teachers unions play a critical role in advocating for teachers.

Additionally, there is no question in my mind that the movie’s teacher union president Evelyn Riske, played by Holly Hunter, was a caricature of AFT president Randi Weingarten.

Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT

Looks so much like . . .

Holly Hunter as Evelyn Riske, the president of the TAP (the teacher’s union in Won’t Back Down)

The movie’s union president has short blond hair, talks about her union-supporting father (mother in Weingarten’s case), is childless, and is potentially a lesbian; the only piece that was missing was an iPhone in hand to enable the almost omnipotent presence on Twitter for which Weingarten is famous.

It is no spolier to say the school is successfully taken over by the end of the movie. My heart soared as I watched Viola Davis rally her jaded colleagues in the teacher’s lounge and eloquently vanquish her incompetent principal (boom!). Who among us has not dreamed of leading a mob of ruler-waving parents, students and teachers to the steps of our school where we will begin a reign of benevolence, competence and musical education for all?  If you’re looking for a feel-good movie, check out Won’t Back Down; but if you’re looking to gain insight into our country’s complex education issues you’re better off sticking to reliable news sources.

This past year was the first time more high school seniors took the ACT rather than the SAT. There are two provocative articles out now about the SAT and its future. One is an opinion piece in the Washington Post by Jay Mathews titled “Outdated SAT Needs to be Retired” and the other is a profile of the new CEO of the College Board who is also one of the main authors of the Common Core standards, David Coleman. This article in The Atlantic lay’s out Coleman’s drive to make the SAT a knowledge-based exam that complements the skills built by the Common Core.

As an educator, I find the hoop-jumping and disconnected gibberish of the SAT infuriating – study after study (and college boyfriend after college boyfriend in my case) shows that performance on the SAT does not translate into performance in college courses or even eventual graduation. The ACT seems a slightly more democratic exam; however, even better would be a reliance on exams like those the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program puts out.

Take the history exam for example: instead of a one-shot multiple choice extravaganza, the IB exam is made up of four parts. An out of class research paper on a topic of the student’s choice, a series of timed document based questions, and two timed essays the topic of which the student is able to select from a short list. Similarly in science class the IB exam score is partly based on a student-designed lab. In English a large part of the exam consists of giving an oral commentary on a particular text. Yes, these exams are expensive to grade and require extensive training of teachers before hand. But how well has efficiency and expediency in standardized testing served our kids for the past few decades?

How do you feel about the SAT?