It bugs me that the charter movement is seen in some quarters as the enemy of public schools. While it's clear that there are folks out there - and to an extent, in leadership - who are not concerned with the health of public schools or of American democracy, I don't think it's fair to paint all charter advocates with one brush. It's a complex situation, and I'm trying to pay attention...
Here's a cool document from New Leaders for New Schools around principal leadership - I really like this format!
Showing posts with label K12. Show all posts
Showing posts with label K12. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Positivity in Reform
This week, Newsweek profiled the Charlotte, NC school district because of a unique idea: finding incentives for the best principals to take over the most challenging schools. And it seems to be working. Check out An Offer They Couldn't Refuse - it's similar to an idea that the Minneapolis teacher's union explored years ago for teachers but never developed. It makes sense!
Saturday, June 19, 2010
PSEO - it's complicated!
MinnPost - Dual-credit focus now is on under-represented, low-income and at-risk students
I'm frustrated by this movement, because what we're seeing at the local level is MCTC and the like targeting students directly & inviting them to participate - often in classes that are high-school, NOT college level.
And now I'm hearing that MCTC has created a "jump-start" program that is literally high-school level. They get the $$ from the school districts, but the "credit" that this kids get doesn't count toward a degree. Lovely.
And it's all cloaked in righteous talk about including more kids of color. In fact, I think kids are getting suckered and it's shameful. With all the money we are spending on AP, IB and CIS classes, kids have no need to go down the road for college preparation or even college credit.
I'm frustrated by this movement, because what we're seeing at the local level is MCTC and the like targeting students directly & inviting them to participate - often in classes that are high-school, NOT college level.
And now I'm hearing that MCTC has created a "jump-start" program that is literally high-school level. They get the $$ from the school districts, but the "credit" that this kids get doesn't count toward a degree. Lovely.
And it's all cloaked in righteous talk about including more kids of color. In fact, I think kids are getting suckered and it's shameful. With all the money we are spending on AP, IB and CIS classes, kids have no need to go down the road for college preparation or even college credit.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Classroom of the Future?!
How's this for cool? An economical use of resources - the Classroom of the Future brings a tech-advanced space to the school via flatbed truck. So a district might invest in one and share it among schools - or share with other districts.
It has:
* a stage and a small-cinema-sized screen for presentations and performances
* work space for 15 students to explore music and filmmaking
* adaptability for additional needs as technology improves!
Bravo, future thinkers!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
25 Years After "A Nation at Risk"
I don't often agree with George Will - though he is an incredibly articulate writer and one often has to pay careful attention to avoid getting sucked into baloney with him. But his reflection on the state of education the other day is worth reading.
I disagree with much of his rhetoric, but he dares to go where good liberals (myself included) fear to tread, noting that a 1966 report concluded that "the qualities of the families from which students come to school matter much more than money as predictors of schools' effectiveness." (Note the work qualities, not quality. That's important.)
A cursory glance around any school community will confirm this. In general, when parents insist that students do well academically, they do well. When parents do not push, students do not accomplish as much. Occasionally, a student fails or succeeds in spite of their parents, and that's the nature of America. But educators know that, as a group, in general, students will meet our expectations.
(This is why I tell my friends with small children to stop using "or else" - it signals that you don't really expect them to do what you've asked.)
Soo... Will blames schools for focusing on teaching and funding (the things they CAN control) rather than the percent of students born to single parents or poverty - which is not only unfair but pointless. It's unfair because the family is not the purview of the schools. It's pointless because the family is not the purview of the schools. Blaming families is handy, but accomplishes nothing.
It's not a matter of helping parents understand that their kid needs a desk with a light in a quiet place, and needs to sit there for an hour a day, in order to get homework done. That we can do. It's a matter of finding housing for the friends & relatives who are staying in the home and giving kids no privacy. Of keeping the electricity turned on. Of providing a meal - even without the family gathered around one table for dinner. Of convincing folks that Dr King's dream did not die with him, much as it appears to have when viewed through the lens of poverty.
So while Will brings up a point that is relevant to discussions of academic achievement, it is not helpful in terms of improving schools. The spin-master strikes again.
Misusing statistics to push an agenda is not a conservative thing - people from all points of view do that. I was joking with a friend in my stats class today that we can use statistics to prove just about anything. Correlations don't necessarily even show relationship - they certainly don't show cause.
For example, Will implies that the unionization of teaching is the cause of a decline in the average SAT score. That's crap. The first teachers union was created in 1962 and America's highest average SAT scores were posted in 1964. Cause? Of course not. Correlation? Hardly. Relationship? Maybe - both were reactions to the fact that America was asking its schools to do something never before attempted: educate everyone.
Schools do what they can with what they have. Some are racist places that create barriers for kids who don't have well-educated parents. Can't deny this. But the system is a reflection of America - and the many people who think like George Will. We who are working in schools know that we have much work yet to do to accomplish the goal of educating everyone. But unlike the pundits, we're in there fighting the good fight.
I disagree with much of his rhetoric, but he dares to go where good liberals (myself included) fear to tread, noting that a 1966 report concluded that "the qualities of the families from which students come to school matter much more than money as predictors of schools' effectiveness." (Note the work qualities, not quality. That's important.)
A cursory glance around any school community will confirm this. In general, when parents insist that students do well academically, they do well. When parents do not push, students do not accomplish as much. Occasionally, a student fails or succeeds in spite of their parents, and that's the nature of America. But educators know that, as a group, in general, students will meet our expectations.
(This is why I tell my friends with small children to stop using "or else" - it signals that you don't really expect them to do what you've asked.)
Soo... Will blames schools for focusing on teaching and funding (the things they CAN control) rather than the percent of students born to single parents or poverty - which is not only unfair but pointless. It's unfair because the family is not the purview of the schools. It's pointless because the family is not the purview of the schools. Blaming families is handy, but accomplishes nothing.
It's not a matter of helping parents understand that their kid needs a desk with a light in a quiet place, and needs to sit there for an hour a day, in order to get homework done. That we can do. It's a matter of finding housing for the friends & relatives who are staying in the home and giving kids no privacy. Of keeping the electricity turned on. Of providing a meal - even without the family gathered around one table for dinner. Of convincing folks that Dr King's dream did not die with him, much as it appears to have when viewed through the lens of poverty.
So while Will brings up a point that is relevant to discussions of academic achievement, it is not helpful in terms of improving schools. The spin-master strikes again.
Misusing statistics to push an agenda is not a conservative thing - people from all points of view do that. I was joking with a friend in my stats class today that we can use statistics to prove just about anything. Correlations don't necessarily even show relationship - they certainly don't show cause.
For example, Will implies that the unionization of teaching is the cause of a decline in the average SAT score. That's crap. The first teachers union was created in 1962 and America's highest average SAT scores were posted in 1964. Cause? Of course not. Correlation? Hardly. Relationship? Maybe - both were reactions to the fact that America was asking its schools to do something never before attempted: educate everyone.
Schools do what they can with what they have. Some are racist places that create barriers for kids who don't have well-educated parents. Can't deny this. But the system is a reflection of America - and the many people who think like George Will. We who are working in schools know that we have much work yet to do to accomplish the goal of educating everyone. But unlike the pundits, we're in there fighting the good fight.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Bravo, Patriots!
Shout out to Patrick Henry's boy's basketball team, back in the state semi-finals after a win over St Michael tonight for the first time since '03! The Henry website has more info on the team's accomplishments this year. This picture cracks me up because they are trying to look cool and not smile - but I bet they're smiling tonight!
Varsity players I worked with in my time at PHHS include Louis Cox, Dennis Joiner, Alonzo Melton, and Jerry Sweezy. I'm proud of you guys!!!
Go Patriots - next game is tomorrow! :)
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Finland - No Surprise
If teachers in Finland are paid about the same, but the profession is much more competitive, I'm curious why. And if the answer seems to be that they have much more academic freedom - fewer standardized tests, etc - I'm thinking HA, no doubt! And it does not surprise me to learn that coming from that environment, kids in Finland are significantly outscoring their American counterparts on the very standardized tests they don't value so much.
Say what?
A recent Wall Street Journal article explains that Finnish students finished first in science & near the top in math and reading because of a formula that is simple, but not easy: "Well-trained teachers and responsible children. Early on, kids do a lot without adults hovering. And teachers create lessons to fit their students. "We don't have oil or other riches. Knowledge is the thing Finnish people have," says Hannele Frantsi, a school principal."
The creators of the international test commented on Finland's success: "Finnish teachers pick books and customize lessons as they shape students to national standards. "In most countries, education feels like a car factory. In Finland, the teachers are the entrepreneurs," says Mr. Schleicher, of the Paris-based OECD, which began the international student test in 2000."
Consider where America might be right now if the Bush administration had invested all that $$ in teacher training, rather than testing...!
An interesting cultural contributor is that English TV shows have Finnish subtitles, not dubbing, so in order to enjoy their favorite shows, students must be good readers. Hmm... how can we replicate that?
Say what?
A recent Wall Street Journal article explains that Finnish students finished first in science & near the top in math and reading because of a formula that is simple, but not easy: "Well-trained teachers and responsible children. Early on, kids do a lot without adults hovering. And teachers create lessons to fit their students. "We don't have oil or other riches. Knowledge is the thing Finnish people have," says Hannele Frantsi, a school principal."
The creators of the international test commented on Finland's success: "Finnish teachers pick books and customize lessons as they shape students to national standards. "In most countries, education feels like a car factory. In Finland, the teachers are the entrepreneurs," says Mr. Schleicher, of the Paris-based OECD, which began the international student test in 2000."
Consider where America might be right now if the Bush administration had invested all that $$ in teacher training, rather than testing...!
An interesting cultural contributor is that English TV shows have Finnish subtitles, not dubbing, so in order to enjoy their favorite shows, students must be good readers. Hmm... how can we replicate that?
Saturday, October 20, 2007
GPS Your Kid
There are a hundred examples of tension between freedom and education, but this one is really a kick. A school in the UK, Hungerhill School in Doncaster, South Yorkshire, is trying out a system that embeds microchips into students' uniforms that register their attendance as they come into the classroom. The kids are participating voluntarily as part of a science project.
Of course an article in the London Times today sparked immediate controversy. While the school officials maintain that this is for attendance purposes only and they are not trying "Bog Brother" tactics to monitor students' every move, critics point out that it's not much different that a criminal wearing an ankle-bracelet tracking device.
Action on Rights for Children (ARCH) makes the connection with another recent article about a company that is considering putting microchips into kids' clothing for parents to be able to track them. Apparently, after contacting the company, ARCH found out that this isn't just an idea, but something the company is actively working on. How long until that's something parents can buy at Macy's?
I don't know a ton about the British education system, but the website says the Hungerhill School is a "11-16 comprehensive school" - which implies upper high school grades to me. I think it's interesting to start at the level rather than with younger kids.
What exactly is being accomplished? If it saves the teacher the time of taking attendance, I think that's cool. I have fantasized about a system in which a kid just swipes their ID card at the door & it monitors who's where. This just takes it to the next level - no ID card necessary.
But the idea of having one's movements monitored should be of serious concern to Americans. Right now, if I don't actively turn it off, my cell phone has a GPS that can track me. (I'm not even sure about my work cell - can my boss track me now? Good grief.) In an emergency, sure, I'd love to be tracked down by someone coming to rescue me. But daily life?
As you've seen in previous posts, I long ago gave up any pretense to privacy. In this age, you can find out a lot about me without leaving your living room (or wherever your computer is.) My have always been listed in the phone book, and in 15 years my students have never abused it. I guess I just don't see the point of privacy if I'm not doing anything I shouldn't - and in my profession, doing things I shouldn't isn't really an option. So it's sort of moot for me. But for average Americans, I'm not so sure.
Bottom line - I have no problem monitoring kids and I don't think they need adult freedoms until they are adults. But I think every encroachment on freedom is dangerous, and things like microchips in kids' clothing need to be VERY carefully considered as a matter of public policy.
Ironically, Boondocks today is on technology - so McGruder leaves us with a laugh. :)
Of course an article in the London Times today sparked immediate controversy. While the school officials maintain that this is for attendance purposes only and they are not trying "Bog Brother" tactics to monitor students' every move, critics point out that it's not much different that a criminal wearing an ankle-bracelet tracking device.
Action on Rights for Children (ARCH) makes the connection with another recent article about a company that is considering putting microchips into kids' clothing for parents to be able to track them. Apparently, after contacting the company, ARCH found out that this isn't just an idea, but something the company is actively working on. How long until that's something parents can buy at Macy's?
I don't know a ton about the British education system, but the website says the Hungerhill School is a "11-16 comprehensive school" - which implies upper high school grades to me. I think it's interesting to start at the level rather than with younger kids.
What exactly is being accomplished? If it saves the teacher the time of taking attendance, I think that's cool. I have fantasized about a system in which a kid just swipes their ID card at the door & it monitors who's where. This just takes it to the next level - no ID card necessary.
But the idea of having one's movements monitored should be of serious concern to Americans. Right now, if I don't actively turn it off, my cell phone has a GPS that can track me. (I'm not even sure about my work cell - can my boss track me now? Good grief.) In an emergency, sure, I'd love to be tracked down by someone coming to rescue me. But daily life?
As you've seen in previous posts, I long ago gave up any pretense to privacy. In this age, you can find out a lot about me without leaving your living room (or wherever your computer is.) My have always been listed in the phone book, and in 15 years my students have never abused it. I guess I just don't see the point of privacy if I'm not doing anything I shouldn't - and in my profession, doing things I shouldn't isn't really an option. So it's sort of moot for me. But for average Americans, I'm not so sure.
Bottom line - I have no problem monitoring kids and I don't think they need adult freedoms until they are adults. But I think every encroachment on freedom is dangerous, and things like microchips in kids' clothing need to be VERY carefully considered as a matter of public policy.
Ironically, Boondocks today is on technology - so McGruder leaves us with a laugh. :)
Monday, September 24, 2007
Beauty in the Form of a Young Poet
I first met this kid when he was about 17, at a poetry slam at the Underground at the U of MN. I was so taken with one of his poems that I introduced myself and asked for a copy to use with my students. I was working with my school's poetry slam team at the time and Ryan's work was inspirational to all of us. We've kept in touch & he recently sent this video for me to check out. You may need to watch it more than once. Beautiful.
Check out more of Ryan's work at www.myspace.com/homelessryank
Check out more of Ryan's work at www.myspace.com/homelessryank
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Controversy in Chaska
There's a new law in Chaska:
Should parents be held legally liable for the results of underage drinking that goes on in their home, even if they did not actually procure the alcohol themselves? Even if they are not at home at the time the alcohol is consumed?
First reaction - of course! Raise your kids right, darn it.
Second reaction - hmm... what would that law have meant for my own parents?!
I told my daughter that we could lose our home if anything drug or alcohol related ever happened on our property. (That's actually true in some townhome communities around here - a drug-related arrest is cause for eviction. But Golden Valley hasn't adopted it yet...) I think she believed me!
My parents pretty much had no clue about any of the teenage drinking that went on in their home because it never happened with them there. That's an interesting twist within the law - they don't even have to be home to be responsible.
But if they don't shovel the sidewalk they don't have to be home to lose the lawsuit when someone falls...
Should parents be held legally liable for the results of underage drinking that goes on in their home, even if they did not actually procure the alcohol themselves? Even if they are not at home at the time the alcohol is consumed?
First reaction - of course! Raise your kids right, darn it.
Second reaction - hmm... what would that law have meant for my own parents?!
I told my daughter that we could lose our home if anything drug or alcohol related ever happened on our property. (That's actually true in some townhome communities around here - a drug-related arrest is cause for eviction. But Golden Valley hasn't adopted it yet...) I think she believed me!
My parents pretty much had no clue about any of the teenage drinking that went on in their home because it never happened with them there. That's an interesting twist within the law - they don't even have to be home to be responsible.
But if they don't shovel the sidewalk they don't have to be home to lose the lawsuit when someone falls...
Perspective
Shimu's story is not as different from some of our local children's lives as we would like to think. Many American - and Minnesotan - kids still struggle with expectations from families that they work to support the family, and some are still pressured to get married young.
Panthar, on the other hand, truly lives in a different world. Herding cattle is not how most 12-year-old American boys spend their days.
The stories of these two young people are detailed in the StarTribune today under the headline "Their stories reveal struggles of the young for a different future." In Shimu's case, she is resisting her family's pressure for her to quit school & get married, hoping to continue to study and work toward a better future. Panthar's older brother, Bol, goes to school in a nearby town, with the hope of a better life through a "new way."
I will never call any of my students lazy, though some are very unmotivated and unambitious. But I wish they had a clearer sense of what the options are, and how lucky they are not only to have school available to them, but to live in a society that actually expects them to attend & learn. "Poor" in America is nothing like poor in Bangladesh or Sudan. I just wish they all understood that!
Panthar, on the other hand, truly lives in a different world. Herding cattle is not how most 12-year-old American boys spend their days.
The stories of these two young people are detailed in the StarTribune today under the headline "Their stories reveal struggles of the young for a different future." In Shimu's case, she is resisting her family's pressure for her to quit school & get married, hoping to continue to study and work toward a better future. Panthar's older brother, Bol, goes to school in a nearby town, with the hope of a better life through a "new way."
I will never call any of my students lazy, though some are very unmotivated and unambitious. But I wish they had a clearer sense of what the options are, and how lucky they are not only to have school available to them, but to live in a society that actually expects them to attend & learn. "Poor" in America is nothing like poor in Bangladesh or Sudan. I just wish they all understood that!
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Focus
The world continues to spin, but I am hard-core focused on work these days! Partly because we're ramping up to the beginning of a new school year... partly because my kid is off at college & it's weird living alone... partly just because I love my work...
As the school year goes, this time of year is so sweet... all anticipation, high energy, positivity and hope!
Labor Day Weekend approaches:
* Thursday - staff party, BB King at the state fair
* Friday - staff breakfast, light work day, The Final Word spoken word performance at the U
* Saturday & Sunday - at the cabin, hopefully with lots of sun :)
* Monday - re-focus & get ready!
As the school year goes, this time of year is so sweet... all anticipation, high energy, positivity and hope!
Labor Day Weekend approaches:
* Thursday - staff party, BB King at the state fair
* Friday - staff breakfast, light work day, The Final Word spoken word performance at the U
* Saturday & Sunday - at the cabin, hopefully with lots of sun :)
* Monday - re-focus & get ready!
Saturday, August 04, 2007
I Don't Get It
Not a huge controversy, but interesting anyway... a writer on PopWatch takes issue with MTV censorship of a video. Apparently the top pop song these days is "Beautiful Girls" by Sean Kingston (or rather, by Lieber & Stoller, performed by Kingston.) I didn't know that - maybe because I'm 39 and just don't watch enough MTV?
OK, I don't watch MTV at all, so I haven't seen this - though the link includes the video - but apparently MTV, in its infinite wisdom, blanks out a couple words (or a few lines, depending on who you believe) of the song on the video. That, in itself, can't be surprising, but here are the lines:
You're way too beautiful, girl
That's why it'll never work
You'll have me suicidal, suicidal
When you say it's over
Now I absolutely think the lines are stupid - but not in need of censorship. The idea of dying over rejection is pathetic, but do teens need to be protected from the very idea? Come on.
Frankly, while I'm impressed that MTV actually does bleep out offensiveness - another thing I didn't know - all this does is draw attention to something that would otherwise have received much less attention.
Dumb.
OK, I don't watch MTV at all, so I haven't seen this - though the link includes the video - but apparently MTV, in its infinite wisdom, blanks out a couple words (or a few lines, depending on who you believe) of the song on the video. That, in itself, can't be surprising, but here are the lines:
You're way too beautiful, girl
That's why it'll never work
You'll have me suicidal, suicidal
When you say it's over
Now I absolutely think the lines are stupid - but not in need of censorship. The idea of dying over rejection is pathetic, but do teens need to be protected from the very idea? Come on.
Frankly, while I'm impressed that MTV actually does bleep out offensiveness - another thing I didn't know - all this does is draw attention to something that would otherwise have received much less attention.
Dumb.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
She's Right!
I don't make a habit of agreeing with Katherine Kersten (much as Mitch won't often agree w/ Syl Jones, but hey, that's OK) but this week she was right on.
Most of you know that I'm a big Efrem Smith fan, so her profile of his work with Sanctuary Covenant Church is all good as far as I'm concerned.
Of course, calling "family breakdown" a problem is NOT the same as saying women need to skeedaddle back to the kitchen - tread with caution here! - but it's still a righteous issue for many of our kids today.
Efrem points out that this is not just a poor kid issue - though my work on the north side in recent years tells me it IS an issue for them - but it's real for ALL of our MN kids. Efrem says that: "this void, this hole from having no moral compass or guidance at home, can only be filled spiritually." Before you recoil from the straight-out moralizing, think about it. I will say that, anecdotally, my students who have a strong faith absolutely do better in school than those who do not.
Why?
Efrem posits: "If you believe that you are beloved of God... you believe you're on earth for a purpose, and you can make it."
Truth.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" - and Chris Stwart
I was amused to find myself on the side of Judge Samuel Alito in a case that is currently being heard by the supreme court. Wouldn't have expected that!
Check out the case: Bong HIts 4 Jesus
Apparently, back in '02 when the Olympic torch was coming through Juneau Alaska, kids were let out of school to watch. A kid held up a giant banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus", the principal grabbed it & suspended him, he sued, and the case has made its way through the courts over the years right up to the supremes.
Free speech vs. anti-drugs... what's a principal to do???
I laughed at Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comment that "It isn't clear that this is 'Smoke Pot.' " Really? What else does "bong hit" refer to in English?
But Alito, of all people, made a good point: "I find that a very, very disturbing argument because schools have and they can define their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under the banner of getting rid of speech that's inconsistent with educational missions."
Bottom line: it was settled by the Supreme Court in '69 that "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Political speech - pro-drug or otherwise - doesn't have to be allowed to disrupt learning, but if the kid is standing outside he's hardly disrupting classes, so it seems to me that taking the banner away is probably enough. Maybe assign him a detention or something, but a 10-day suspension? Good greif.
In an ironically related StarTribune article, new school board member Chris Stewart is promoting law-and-order in the schools, and he has my FULL support. I've watched the Mpls schools put up with WAY more disruptive behavior with consequences no where near a 10-day suspension, and I'm pretty tired of it.
And he had a great quote, when asked about the "disproportionate suspension of black male students". His response - and Stewart is black - was to assert that "the number of kids we suspend is proportionate to the kids who are committing suspendable offenses." Actually, there are a lot more offenses than suspensions, but his point is well taken! He calls for an "intracultural conversation in the African-American community" because, in addition to teaching their kids how to sit down & attempt to learn, families also need to consider that: "Schools don't make teens have babies, or stop black children from having books in their homes." (duh)
Thank you, Chris Stewart. It's about time someone stepped up to that issue in this town.
Check out the case: Bong HIts 4 Jesus
Apparently, back in '02 when the Olympic torch was coming through Juneau Alaska, kids were let out of school to watch. A kid held up a giant banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus", the principal grabbed it & suspended him, he sued, and the case has made its way through the courts over the years right up to the supremes.
Free speech vs. anti-drugs... what's a principal to do???
I laughed at Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comment that "It isn't clear that this is 'Smoke Pot.' " Really? What else does "bong hit" refer to in English?
But Alito, of all people, made a good point: "I find that a very, very disturbing argument because schools have and they can define their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under the banner of getting rid of speech that's inconsistent with educational missions."
Bottom line: it was settled by the Supreme Court in '69 that "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Political speech - pro-drug or otherwise - doesn't have to be allowed to disrupt learning, but if the kid is standing outside he's hardly disrupting classes, so it seems to me that taking the banner away is probably enough. Maybe assign him a detention or something, but a 10-day suspension? Good greif.
In an ironically related StarTribune article, new school board member Chris Stewart is promoting law-and-order in the schools, and he has my FULL support. I've watched the Mpls schools put up with WAY more disruptive behavior with consequences no where near a 10-day suspension, and I'm pretty tired of it.
And he had a great quote, when asked about the "disproportionate suspension of black male students". His response - and Stewart is black - was to assert that "the number of kids we suspend is proportionate to the kids who are committing suspendable offenses." Actually, there are a lot more offenses than suspensions, but his point is well taken! He calls for an "intracultural conversation in the African-American community" because, in addition to teaching their kids how to sit down & attempt to learn, families also need to consider that: "Schools don't make teens have babies, or stop black children from having books in their homes." (duh)
Thank you, Chris Stewart. It's about time someone stepped up to that issue in this town.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Post from St Paul
(written Friday, posted Sunday - no internet access at the convention)
I am sitting in a huge hall at RiverCenter listening to candidate speeches at the state teachers union convention. Every officer position is up this year, with no incumbents running. Interesting year!
Speeches are short and are usually the most interesting part of the agenda, but I am still compelled to multi-task. I have a folder of student essays to score, a paper to finish for a grad class, and of course this post to write.
There are several candidates for state union leadership positions who are clearly Gen X. Of course, the older I get, the more logical that gets, but it’s still nice to see. :) Tom Dooher, the candidate we’re supporting for President, is Gen X. Mary Cathryn Ricker, the Gen X St Paul teachers union president I wrote about a couple months ago, gave a very polished speech. (You wouldn’t guess she’s younger than me!) Anne Lewerenz, from Minneapolis, is another dynamic Gen X leader running for Governing Board. There are well over 500 delegates here, so it’s a kick to see our generation – supposedly so disinclined toward institutional involvement - leading such a large group!
Speeches continue…
Worst line of the night: “I love issues.” (Good grief. As I tell my students: think first, then speak.)
Best line: “Don’t cry because it’s over… smile because it happened.”
I am sitting in a huge hall at RiverCenter listening to candidate speeches at the state teachers union convention. Every officer position is up this year, with no incumbents running. Interesting year!
Speeches are short and are usually the most interesting part of the agenda, but I am still compelled to multi-task. I have a folder of student essays to score, a paper to finish for a grad class, and of course this post to write.
There are several candidates for state union leadership positions who are clearly Gen X. Of course, the older I get, the more logical that gets, but it’s still nice to see. :) Tom Dooher, the candidate we’re supporting for President, is Gen X. Mary Cathryn Ricker, the Gen X St Paul teachers union president I wrote about a couple months ago, gave a very polished speech. (You wouldn’t guess she’s younger than me!) Anne Lewerenz, from Minneapolis, is another dynamic Gen X leader running for Governing Board. There are well over 500 delegates here, so it’s a kick to see our generation – supposedly so disinclined toward institutional involvement - leading such a large group!
Speeches continue…
Worst line of the night: “I love issues.” (Good grief. As I tell my students: think first, then speak.)
Best line: “Don’t cry because it’s over… smile because it happened.”
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Wish I Was This Articulate
Here's another writer more articulate than I am on the subject of the achievement gap and issues with the schools... this time, my colleague & friend John Cook, writing in the StarTribune today:
His major point: "We have to admit that the achievement gap is not just an educational problem. Rather, it is a byproduct of America's socio-economic, cultural, family and racial crises."
He goes on to illustrate:
Spring Lake Park's school district has a motto: "High Standards for All. High Achievement for All. No excuses." I think that's critical - pointing the finger at the societal and cultural factors that hold our kids back is NOT going to help us progress. But engaging with those factors WILL help us progress, and that's what I call on Dan Samuels and our other critics to do.
His major point: "We have to admit that the achievement gap is not just an educational problem. Rather, it is a byproduct of America's socio-economic, cultural, family and racial crises."
He goes on to illustrate:
"If all kids could attend the school of their choice, there'd still be an achievement gap; pulling some students out of low-performing schools and placing them into so-called "good schools" never addresses the core reasons so many African-American students struggle in the first place. If all schools had unlimited financial resources, there'd still be an achievement gap due to America's unresolved issues of race and class. These factors contribute to poor academic performance, crime, generational poverty and societal prejudice that, in turn, perpetuate the achievement gap.
If all educators had access to world-class staff development and taught the most effective curricula, there'd still be an achievement gap; the breakdown of the black family has reaped economic, social and academic consequences that impede academic progress. If every black child began first grade prepared to learn, there'd still be an achievement gap because not all educators believe black students are capable of learning on par with their white counterparts. Surely, low societal and academic expectations harm student learning."
Thank you! This doesn't let us off the hook - it's still true that the government has ways of holding schools accountable, but not of holding families accountable - but it puts it all in perspective. Yes, we need to have the best curriculum & instruction, the best teachers, and we need to believe in each one of our kids.Spring Lake Park's school district has a motto: "High Standards for All. High Achievement for All. No excuses." I think that's critical - pointing the finger at the societal and cultural factors that hold our kids back is NOT going to help us progress. But engaging with those factors WILL help us progress, and that's what I call on Dan Samuels and our other critics to do.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Thank You, David Brooks!
Finally, someone articulate explains the “schools can’t do it all” issue that I’ve been struggling with for the last couple of months – David Brooks’ column “A Critique of Pure Reason in Education” published in the NY Times 3/1 and the Strib today. (Unfortunately you have to be a NYT subscriber to read it online – or go buy today’s Strib.)
I’ve been frustrated with Don Samuels & a hundred other people blaming the schools for the poor achievement of kids who come to us with enormous deficits. At some point, the finger has to be pointed at the forces creating the deficits – which makes everyone squeamish because of the implication of bad parenting. Brooks takes a constructive tack and simply proposes that government must rethink its role and invest not just in better early-ed, but in more programs like Circle of Security and Nurse-Family Partnership which help new mothers do the things we know kids need from birth on.
Brooks notes that Martha Farah’s research at Penn has been pretty clear about come of the deficits that poverty brings:
* Students who do not feel emotionally safe tend not to develop good memories (good for
coping, bad for school)
* Students from less stimulation environments have much smaller vocabularies and worse language skills
Conversely, children from attentive, attuned parenting relationships do better in school an beyond. While this may be no surprise to anyone in education, it focuses our attention on the need to intervene before such problems take root.
And there are ways to do that, if we are willing to put the child’s right to good mental health before the family’s right to privacy. Hmm…
I suppose conservatives would say that what goes on in the household is none of government’s business, and in a way, they would be right.
But if we are committed to the education of all Americans – and, supposedly, we are – than we need to extend that commitment to acknowledge, as Brooks puts it:
“…Education is a cumulative process that begins at the dawn of life and builds early in life as children learn how to learn…”
and
“…we have to get over the definition of education as something that takes place in schools between the hours of 8 and 3, between the months of September and June, and between the ages of 5 and 18.”
Brooks challenges the current crop of presidential candidates to embrace the need to go beyond fixing schools to fixing the "powerful social trends" that put kids at a disadvantage.
Thank you!!!
I’ve been frustrated with Don Samuels & a hundred other people blaming the schools for the poor achievement of kids who come to us with enormous deficits. At some point, the finger has to be pointed at the forces creating the deficits – which makes everyone squeamish because of the implication of bad parenting. Brooks takes a constructive tack and simply proposes that government must rethink its role and invest not just in better early-ed, but in more programs like Circle of Security and Nurse-Family Partnership which help new mothers do the things we know kids need from birth on.
Brooks notes that Martha Farah’s research at Penn has been pretty clear about come of the deficits that poverty brings:
* Students who do not feel emotionally safe tend not to develop good memories (good for
coping, bad for school)
* Students from less stimulation environments have much smaller vocabularies and worse language skills
Conversely, children from attentive, attuned parenting relationships do better in school an beyond. While this may be no surprise to anyone in education, it focuses our attention on the need to intervene before such problems take root.
And there are ways to do that, if we are willing to put the child’s right to good mental health before the family’s right to privacy. Hmm…
I suppose conservatives would say that what goes on in the household is none of government’s business, and in a way, they would be right.
But if we are committed to the education of all Americans – and, supposedly, we are – than we need to extend that commitment to acknowledge, as Brooks puts it:
“…Education is a cumulative process that begins at the dawn of life and builds early in life as children learn how to learn…”
and
“…we have to get over the definition of education as something that takes place in schools between the hours of 8 and 3, between the months of September and June, and between the ages of 5 and 18.”
Brooks challenges the current crop of presidential candidates to embrace the need to go beyond fixing schools to fixing the "powerful social trends" that put kids at a disadvantage.
Thank you!!!
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Oh, the Irony
I finally read the Mpls St Paul mag article about Mpls City Council Member Don Samuels that launched the whole "burn it down" controversy, and I'm mystified. http://www.mspmag.com/features/features/50761.asp
On just about every other topic, it seems the man gets it. He challenges the community to help itself, to help each other - and community leaders to walk their talk. I have been saying for the last couple weeks "I will share his outrage - when he points his finger at those who are abusing our children, and that's not the schools." Ironically, if the article is to be believed, he is mostly pointing fingers in the right direction.
Why, then, his ignorance about the schools?
Is it simply ignorance, taking inaccurate statistics to make assumptions that lead to politically convenient positions? School-bashing has been trendy since Bush took office, so go along & you don't look too liberal?
In fact, the article named support of public education a "white sacred cow" - which in this state it clearly is NOT. (At least not anymore - we're over 30 years past the Minnesota Miracle. See http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/18public.html) I wish the education of all American children was sacred to all Americans...
Samuels didn't give any reason in the article as to why he would dismiss the entire school system with: "Get rid of the damn thing! It hasn’t worked!” beyond the widely-quoted but still wrong statistic about black male graduation rates. I guess that is the mystifying part - what does he really believe about us?
Despite all the bad press, great things are still happening every day in all of the Minneapolis schools. Timothy J. O'Brien, an editorial letter-writer from Minneapolis made a great point in the Strib the other day in response to Samuels' call for vouchers:
On just about every other topic, it seems the man gets it. He challenges the community to help itself, to help each other - and community leaders to walk their talk. I have been saying for the last couple weeks "I will share his outrage - when he points his finger at those who are abusing our children, and that's not the schools." Ironically, if the article is to be believed, he is mostly pointing fingers in the right direction.
Why, then, his ignorance about the schools?
Is it simply ignorance, taking inaccurate statistics to make assumptions that lead to politically convenient positions? School-bashing has been trendy since Bush took office, so go along & you don't look too liberal?
In fact, the article named support of public education a "white sacred cow" - which in this state it clearly is NOT. (At least not anymore - we're over 30 years past the Minnesota Miracle. See http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/18public.html) I wish the education of all American children was sacred to all Americans...
Samuels didn't give any reason in the article as to why he would dismiss the entire school system with: "Get rid of the damn thing! It hasn’t worked!” beyond the widely-quoted but still wrong statistic about black male graduation rates. I guess that is the mystifying part - what does he really believe about us?
Despite all the bad press, great things are still happening every day in all of the Minneapolis schools. Timothy J. O'Brien, an editorial letter-writer from Minneapolis made a great point in the Strib the other day in response to Samuels' call for vouchers:
SCHOOL CHOICE: Vouchers to the rescue
I've always been strongly against school vouchers. However, after reading Minneapolis City Council Member Don Samuels remarks, Nick Coleman's columns and Mitch Pearlstein's Feb. 21 Counterpoint, I now see vouchers as the only way for Minneapolis public schools, which my three adult children attended, to be saved.
However, I have some restrictions on how the vouchers will be dispensed. If you missed school five or more days in a semester, you get a voucher; if you acted out in class more than twice in a semester, you get a voucher; if you fail to do your homework on a timely basis, you get a voucher; if you were arrested for anything anytime, you get a voucher.
Now, after all of the just voucher recipients are warmly accepted into the schools of their choice, the remaining students -- the ones who attend every day, act appropriately, are prepared and law-abiding -- will excel as never before and the voucher system will be a huge success. I'm sure all of the charter and private schools will accept these new students with open arms.
That's the bottom line that folks don't mention when KIPP schools and other successful charters are touted as the magic bullet: they are full of kids whose parents had the good sense to send them there. Imagine if all the kids in the Minneapolis Public School had parents who were involved at the level that KIPP parents are...
Even so, the sins of the parents should not hold back their kids. I've always maintained that my daughter's elite private school has only two things that my public school needs: over $20,000 per kid, and the ability to kick out anyone they don't want. Give us those two things in the Minneapolis Public Schools and our results will match theirs in no time.
Want something to be outraged about, Mr. Samuels? How about the fact that no one with power in this state has any interest in that idea?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
More Hot Air from Samuels Fans the Flames
Stark contract between the Strib's editorial yesterday on the firestorm unleashed by Don Samuel's cry to burn down North HS and the city council member's own column on the subject in the paper today:
Editorial: http://www.startribune.com/561/story/990843.html
Samuels: http://www.startribune.com/562/story/992944.html
What's most striking to me is that Samuels is still giving a one-note answer: fix the schools. Nothing about fixing the kids, families, neighborhoods, housing policies, health care policies, education funding or juvenile justice system, all of which are players in this drama as well.
Now Samuels wants to bring "outstanding educators" from around the nation to Minneapolis this spring to teach us what we apparently don't know. Give me a break. He doesn't seem to have a clue what we ARE doing already. Come spend some time in the schools, Mr. Samuels, then we'll talk. (Your kids may never darken our doorways, but as an elected official, you should.)
It's my opinion that there is nothing new under the sun. Educators know what works, and what doesn't. As one of my colleagues once quipped: "Want to solve all the problems in the schools? Staff at 3:1." Ha ha ha. (My school staffed this year at 38:1, if you're not an educator & didn't get it. That means average classes of 38 kids with one teacher.) We simply don't have the resources needed to work the miracles asked of us. The people of Minnesota need to choose to pay for the results they want.
At least the Strib's editorial staff had the sense to speak to the larger issues affecting schools: "Turning all of that around is a lot to ask of the public schools, especially in light of the funding cuts forced on education, police and social services, and the persistence of a destructive popular culture that celebrates failure, glorifies crime and disrespects academic achievement." BINGO.
The editorial goes on to point out: "Mayor R.T. Rybak has it right when he routinely lists the city's two most basic problems: 'Too many kids raising themselves, and too many kids having kids.'" DUH.
In the end, Samuels asks, rightly, "Why aren't more people pushed beyond the boundaries of politeness and rational discourse - shouldn't this make us all crazy?" Right question - wrong topic. Go back up a paragraph to the mayor's quote and direct your anger where it belongs. We in the schools are doing God's work and having great success. Not 100%? Come fight WITH us, not against us.
Editorial: http://www.startribune.com/561/story/990843.html
Samuels: http://www.startribune.com/562/story/992944.html
What's most striking to me is that Samuels is still giving a one-note answer: fix the schools. Nothing about fixing the kids, families, neighborhoods, housing policies, health care policies, education funding or juvenile justice system, all of which are players in this drama as well.
Now Samuels wants to bring "outstanding educators" from around the nation to Minneapolis this spring to teach us what we apparently don't know. Give me a break. He doesn't seem to have a clue what we ARE doing already. Come spend some time in the schools, Mr. Samuels, then we'll talk. (Your kids may never darken our doorways, but as an elected official, you should.)
It's my opinion that there is nothing new under the sun. Educators know what works, and what doesn't. As one of my colleagues once quipped: "Want to solve all the problems in the schools? Staff at 3:1." Ha ha ha. (My school staffed this year at 38:1, if you're not an educator & didn't get it. That means average classes of 38 kids with one teacher.) We simply don't have the resources needed to work the miracles asked of us. The people of Minnesota need to choose to pay for the results they want.
At least the Strib's editorial staff had the sense to speak to the larger issues affecting schools: "Turning all of that around is a lot to ask of the public schools, especially in light of the funding cuts forced on education, police and social services, and the persistence of a destructive popular culture that celebrates failure, glorifies crime and disrespects academic achievement." BINGO.
The editorial goes on to point out: "Mayor R.T. Rybak has it right when he routinely lists the city's two most basic problems: 'Too many kids raising themselves, and too many kids having kids.'" DUH.
In the end, Samuels asks, rightly, "Why aren't more people pushed beyond the boundaries of politeness and rational discourse - shouldn't this make us all crazy?" Right question - wrong topic. Go back up a paragraph to the mayor's quote and direct your anger where it belongs. We in the schools are doing God's work and having great success. Not 100%? Come fight WITH us, not against us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)