Dear readers,
Please accept my apologies for the ridiculous lack of writing. I'll spare you my excuses and simply move forward.
The last post is one that I started on July 27th and never actually posted. This message will be followed in short order by an intro of the next book and an explanation of the future of the blog.
I appreciate the fact that I actually managed to find a few readers and I look forward to hearing from more of you about the texts. Thanks for hanging in there with me!
-Your harried blogger
Friday, August 6, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Plodding...
I will continue to maintain that The One Best System is an "important" book to read. It is not, however, swift nor particularly enjoyable to read. It is taking me FOREVER to get through it.
And yet, I feel the need to make it to the end because it continues to reveal that everything old is new again. This book was penned in 1974 and yet it might well be describing current models of reform in 2010. For instance:
"Several key groups...joined together in the campaign to centralize control of schools on the corporate model and to make urban education socially effiecient" (p. 129)
Or:
"Eagerly, the centralizers seized on the corporate model of control as the appropriate means of decision-making in urban education."
Schools are actually moving toward de-centralization, at least in many large urban districts, but we continue to look to the "corporate model" for the way to run our schools.
One potential problem with the "old is new" trend is that the "old" corporate model reforms turned into the very system that Tyack defines as the problem. What's that old saying? Those who fail to learn their history are bound to repeat it.
I feel like that adds to the need for me to finish the book. If I, a student of education policy, do not learn the history of the field, perhaps I will contribute to the perpetuation of old failures.
And yet, I feel the need to make it to the end because it continues to reveal that everything old is new again. This book was penned in 1974 and yet it might well be describing current models of reform in 2010. For instance:
"Several key groups...joined together in the campaign to centralize control of schools on the corporate model and to make urban education socially effiecient" (p. 129)
Or:
"Eagerly, the centralizers seized on the corporate model of control as the appropriate means of decision-making in urban education."
Schools are actually moving toward de-centralization, at least in many large urban districts, but we continue to look to the "corporate model" for the way to run our schools.
One potential problem with the "old is new" trend is that the "old" corporate model reforms turned into the very system that Tyack defines as the problem. What's that old saying? Those who fail to learn their history are bound to repeat it.
I feel like that adds to the need for me to finish the book. If I, a student of education policy, do not learn the history of the field, perhaps I will contribute to the perpetuation of old failures.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Book 4 and a new addition to the list
The One Best System by David B. Tyack is one of those books that I have had on my shelf for about 10 years. In fact, my copy is actually from my first year of teaching when I was a member of a full-time volunteer program in an inner-city Catholic school.
I was wide-eyed and excited to dive into the problems plaguing urban education and fix the world. Obviously. I was going to teach like a champion and read every book recommended to me. And then I taught my first few days...and you can imagine where my energy to read went. Right out the window! - along with my belief that the problems in urban education were easy to fix.
After a decade(!) working in education, this reading project was born. And it was high time that I picked up this seminal piece. I am only 25 pages in, but the thing I find most striking is the sense that everything “new” about education is not so new after all.
Tyack wrote this book in 1974 and he says this about the “persistent problems and misconceptions” about urban education:
“Increasing bureaucratization of urban schools has often resulted in a displacement of goals and has often perpetuated positions and outworn practices rather than serving the clients, the children to be taught.”
He goes on to say, “Despite frequent good intentions and abundant rhetoric about ‘equal educational opportunity,’ schools have rarely taught the children of the poor effectively – and this failure has been systematic, not idiosyncratic.”
Umm…he wrote this in 1974. And I might, less eloquently, write similar statements about urban schools today. This fascinates – and troubles – me.
They’ll be more on this book as I get further into it, but I got another new book today!
I went to a “Data Summit” today and all participants were given a copy of Driven By Data: A Practical Guide to Improve Instruction by Paul Bambrick-Santoyo. I think this will be Book #8 (though by now it is painfully obvious that I will not finish in 10 weeks…).
I was wide-eyed and excited to dive into the problems plaguing urban education and fix the world. Obviously. I was going to teach like a champion and read every book recommended to me. And then I taught my first few days...and you can imagine where my energy to read went. Right out the window! - along with my belief that the problems in urban education were easy to fix.
After a decade(!) working in education, this reading project was born. And it was high time that I picked up this seminal piece. I am only 25 pages in, but the thing I find most striking is the sense that everything “new” about education is not so new after all.
Tyack wrote this book in 1974 and he says this about the “persistent problems and misconceptions” about urban education:
“Increasing bureaucratization of urban schools has often resulted in a displacement of goals and has often perpetuated positions and outworn practices rather than serving the clients, the children to be taught.”
He goes on to say, “Despite frequent good intentions and abundant rhetoric about ‘equal educational opportunity,’ schools have rarely taught the children of the poor effectively – and this failure has been systematic, not idiosyncratic.”
Umm…he wrote this in 1974. And I might, less eloquently, write similar statements about urban schools today. This fascinates – and troubles – me.
They’ll be more on this book as I get further into it, but I got another new book today!
I went to a “Data Summit” today and all participants were given a copy of Driven By Data: A Practical Guide to Improve Instruction by Paul Bambrick-Santoyo. I think this will be Book #8 (though by now it is painfully obvious that I will not finish in 10 weeks…).
Monday, July 12, 2010
And the reading continues...
...but ever so slowly. So, to keep my readers amused, I offer this:
Rick Hess thinks that the current wave of edu-documentaries about the charter sector are missing the mark in communicating nuance. They tug the heartstrings - I saw The Lottery and I cried - but do they help or hurt the move toward public understanding of the challenges of education reform via public school choice?
Read his take and then tell me yours.
Rick Hess thinks that the current wave of edu-documentaries about the charter sector are missing the mark in communicating nuance. They tug the heartstrings - I saw The Lottery and I cried - but do they help or hurt the move toward public understanding of the challenges of education reform via public school choice?
Read his take and then tell me yours.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
For those of you keeping count...
I have fallen behind schedule. Shocking!
Book # 3, The Trouble With Black Boys by Pedro Noguera, is great. 
If you have worked with African-American or Latino youth, or plan to, you should read this. If you have not worked with young men before, you should read this, too.
Noguera, who self-identifies as both Black and Latino, does an excellent job of sharing misconceptions about young men from both groups. He peppers the chapters with snippets of relevant research, both his own and that of other scholars of education, sociology, and ethnic studies.
I particularly like Part III: The Schools We Need. An earlier chapter, "How Listening to Students Can Help Schools to Improve," also appealed to me, but left me wishing I had heard more from the students her references, instead of just about them.
That said, one critique I will offer is this: It is a bit repetitive and could have benefited from a more fastidious editor.
The book is a compilation of essays, articles, and papers already published by Noguera. As you read the chapters that make up Part II, you may begin to have a sense of deja vu. And if you feel like you are re-reading a sentence you have seen before, it is because you have. Several sentences are repeated verbatim twice (or even three times...) in different chapters. I went back and checked it myself.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
So Much Reform, So Little Change
Charles Payne’s So Much Reform, So Little Change: The Persistence of Failure in Urban Schools has a depressing title that belies the thoughtful, and even hopeful, tone of the text itself.
And he has a point.
In the first chapter, Payne describes the “dimensions of demoralization” and tries to capture some of the “why” behind those teacher attitudes. You know – those nasty teachers who don’t like new programs, smirk at the idea that all children can achieve academic excellence, and aren’t there to be social workers, they “just want to teach.” He suggests that the institutional characteristics of failing urban schools feed into the demoralization of teachers which further erodes the quality of schools. And so the death-spiral begins. He says, “Failed institutions make the simplest things difficult. The problems manifest themselves in so many ways that they may obscure the fact that that many of the discrete problems are either generated by or reinforced by the sheer lack of connectedness among people” (p. 24).
From here, Payne talks about social trust – between teachers, between teachers and principals (and vice-versa), and between teachers and parents. This, I think is the most interesting contribution he makes in this chapter. He refers often to the work of the Consortium on Chicago School Research (with which he is affiliated) and notes that many of their early field studies note the same thing – “the quality of relationships among adults determined much of what did or did not happen in schools” (p. 35).
If teachers and leaders (principals, assistant principals, curriculum specialists, etc) are not in agreement on the mission of a school, then the school’s mission will be diluted. If every person on the team does not aim for the same goal, the chances of reaching the goal are reduced. It seems pretty straightforward to me. This does not assume that all of the adults in a building have to like each other. It does assume that, even when personal differences/disagreements exist, the adults put aside the differences to move forward with the work they do on behalf of children.
Payne outlines, in painful detail, the woeful state of education reforms in the nation during the last twenty years. While he describes himself as hopeful in the face of the newest attempts by both practitioners and researchers, he also says this: “What is happening now is as if the most determined activist and educators have seized parts of the system by the throat and are beating some sense into it. It’s improvement, but it’s not stable” (p.8).
And he has a point.
In the first chapter, Payne describes the “dimensions of demoralization” and tries to capture some of the “why” behind those teacher attitudes. You know – those nasty teachers who don’t like new programs, smirk at the idea that all children can achieve academic excellence, and aren’t there to be social workers, they “just want to teach.” He suggests that the institutional characteristics of failing urban schools feed into the demoralization of teachers which further erodes the quality of schools. And so the death-spiral begins. He says, “Failed institutions make the simplest things difficult. The problems manifest themselves in so many ways that they may obscure the fact that that many of the discrete problems are either generated by or reinforced by the sheer lack of connectedness among people” (p. 24).
From here, Payne talks about social trust – between teachers, between teachers and principals (and vice-versa), and between teachers and parents. This, I think is the most interesting contribution he makes in this chapter. He refers often to the work of the Consortium on Chicago School Research (with which he is affiliated) and notes that many of their early field studies note the same thing – “the quality of relationships among adults determined much of what did or did not happen in schools” (p. 35).
Is it just me, or do we need to file that idea in the “duh” file? I hate to be so irreverent, but have people really been working under the assumption that solid advances in student learning CAN happen in places where adults are NOT on the same page?
If teachers and leaders (principals, assistant principals, curriculum specialists, etc) are not in agreement on the mission of a school, then the school’s mission will be diluted. If every person on the team does not aim for the same goal, the chances of reaching the goal are reduced. It seems pretty straightforward to me. This does not assume that all of the adults in a building have to like each other. It does assume that, even when personal differences/disagreements exist, the adults put aside the differences to move forward with the work they do on behalf of children.
Right? Don’t they? Shouldn’t they?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Mathematica Releases KIPP Study
The Post's Bill Turque wrote about KIPP yesterday and cites this study released by Mathematica Policy Research. Turque’s article references a few common criticisms of any research that shows higher achievement gains by public charter schools when compared with traditional public schools:
1.KIPP benefits highly motivated parents
2. KIPP often winnows out students who don't fit its program
As a former KIPP teacher, I will not deny either of these statements. I will, however, argue that these statements are not reasons to discount the results KIPP achieves.
KIPP does not promise it will be the right choice for all students. Nor does it purport to be the right schooling system for the nation to adopt writ large. If media or advocates of school choice present KIPP as the solution to what ails the nation educationally, they do so irresponsibly.
KIPP does benefit highly motivated parents. What is wrong with that? If I am a motivated parent living in a poor neighborhood in DC and my student is failing to thrive in a traditional public school setting, why shouldn’t I look elsewhere for a free-alternative that will better serve my child? I might choose a “magnet” option within the traditional public school system or a public charter school option, like KIPP. If I were a parent with greater economic resources (read: if I were wealthy…), I might choose private school or I might move to an area with better public schools. And if I were wealthy, and my child began to thrive in a successful suburban school system, no one would think to comment about why this had happened.
No one criticizes wealthy suburban districts for having high test scores as a result of having highly motivated parents. It is accepted as a forgone conclusion. We – and I use this as the “royal we” to encompass the view of the critics identified in Turque’s piece – do not criticize the movement of those who “have” to the suburbs and their excellent schools. Why then do we find it problematic for the “have nots” to separate themselves into better schools (including KIPPs) within the city?
KIPP schools, then, have a responsibility to the parents who choose their program. Parents expect a high level of discipline, academic rigor, and exceptional involvement from the school staff. In return, they promise their own investment of time and energy. Signing homework nightly, attending meetings and conferences as requested, and ensuring that my child shows up daily on time and in uniform – those are all the expectations I sign on for when I choose to enroll my child. If I can’t meet these expectations, shouldn’t the school have a right to recourse? They cannot do what they promise if I do not do what I promise.
I think others have written more elegantly than I on this, so I refer you here and here for more. Read up, and then come back and tell me what you think.
1.KIPP benefits highly motivated parents
2. KIPP often winnows out students who don't fit its program
As a former KIPP teacher, I will not deny either of these statements. I will, however, argue that these statements are not reasons to discount the results KIPP achieves.
KIPP does not promise it will be the right choice for all students. Nor does it purport to be the right schooling system for the nation to adopt writ large. If media or advocates of school choice present KIPP as the solution to what ails the nation educationally, they do so irresponsibly.
KIPP does benefit highly motivated parents. What is wrong with that? If I am a motivated parent living in a poor neighborhood in DC and my student is failing to thrive in a traditional public school setting, why shouldn’t I look elsewhere for a free-alternative that will better serve my child? I might choose a “magnet” option within the traditional public school system or a public charter school option, like KIPP. If I were a parent with greater economic resources (read: if I were wealthy…), I might choose private school or I might move to an area with better public schools. And if I were wealthy, and my child began to thrive in a successful suburban school system, no one would think to comment about why this had happened.
No one criticizes wealthy suburban districts for having high test scores as a result of having highly motivated parents. It is accepted as a forgone conclusion. We – and I use this as the “royal we” to encompass the view of the critics identified in Turque’s piece – do not criticize the movement of those who “have” to the suburbs and their excellent schools. Why then do we find it problematic for the “have nots” to separate themselves into better schools (including KIPPs) within the city?
KIPP schools, then, have a responsibility to the parents who choose their program. Parents expect a high level of discipline, academic rigor, and exceptional involvement from the school staff. In return, they promise their own investment of time and energy. Signing homework nightly, attending meetings and conferences as requested, and ensuring that my child shows up daily on time and in uniform – those are all the expectations I sign on for when I choose to enroll my child. If I can’t meet these expectations, shouldn’t the school have a right to recourse? They cannot do what they promise if I do not do what I promise.
I think others have written more elegantly than I on this, so I refer you here and here for more. Read up, and then come back and tell me what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)