Tuesday, May 30, 2006

"College isn't for everyone"

Last week my school had its Career Day, and one of the guidance counselors invited me to speak to several classes about my job in the after-school program. I had some really good discussions with kids about different kinds of jobs and the importance of knowing another language (I spoke to ESL classes and the kids really seemed to like the idea that they could get ahead by speaking and writing their language), but things got really interesting when I brought up college.

In the first class, the teacher interrupted me while I telling the kids about what they needed to do in high school to get into college to remind his class that "college isn't for everyone." I realize that the teacher was being realistic - a lot of the 7th and 8th graders who were in that classroom aren't going to make it to college (or even finish high school). I also understand that some people just don't do well in school and can excel in other areas (the teacher brought up a lot of trades that the kids might be interested in). But I was really surprised at how the teacher had already begun to lower the kids' expectations. One of the students actually tried to contradict him and said that her mother had told her about the importance of a college degree, and he just ignored her and kept telling the kids that it would be okay to settle for any job that would pay the bills. I don't disagree with the teacher for being realistic about his kids' futures, especially since he probably has seen a number of his former students fail in high school (a lot of kids from this school do), but it seems wrong to start closing off options to middle schoolers when almost all of them could turn it around in high school. I recognized a number of the "bad" or under-achieving kids in the class, and I couldn't help but wonder if rich kids or students in a high-achieving would have been told the same thing.

The extent to which a lot of people in my school (the staff in my after-school program, teachers, etc) have given up on most kids is more obvious as June is approaching, and it is particularly discouraging to me after watching a few kids in my program that everyone had written off do really well this year (one of my favorite kids came by last week to brag to everyone that he isn't going to summer school this year). All this particular kid needed was someone to believe in him, and even though that isn't going to help every student in this school (it didn't help everyone in the after-school program), it could go a long way for some.

I got a little cheered up by the next class, but it felt like it was in a completely different school. The kids asked interesting questions, and the teacher got really excited when all of her kids said they wanted to go to college. Expectations alone won't help the kids in this school overcome all the obstacles they face, and kids should know that they need to work hard to make it, but career day reminded me how important it is to let kids know that we believe they can do it.

Charter school politics in Minnesota

Eduwonk elucidates.

Sunday, May 28, 2006

Introductory Message

Hi all. Thank you for the invitation to participate; I really appreciate it. I am probably the junior member among the group, as a doctoral candidate in education and cultural studies in education at UCLA.

My interests are broad, but center around philosophy of education, critical pedagogy and the work and legacy of Paulo Freire, media literacy, critical theory and the intersection of technology and education. My dissertation is focused on cynicism and the ways that media and schooling "teach" cynicism and political disengagement to children. I then look at ways that education can intervene against cynicism and reinvigorate civic participation and the hope necessary for social transformation.

I argue in the dissertation that beyond efforts to combat false consciousness, we must seriously engage the endemic cynicism that despoils democracy and dams the channels to change. I argue for the role of teachers as public intellectuals, the need to combine action with critique and the necessity of a more affirmative politics that can combat the ahistorical determinism that predominates today.

At UCLA, I served as program officer for the Paulo Freire Institute for two years and previously worked as a senior research associate at an educational research non-profit. I have also worked as a grant writer, an ESL instructor in Barcelona, Spain and a freelancer, publishing over a hundred articles on movies, music, art and politics. In addition, I have an MA in Economics. And I write fiction in my spare time.

Some recent articles I have published include a critique of educational research, "How Objective is Objectivity?," an article on the potential contribution of Herbert Marcuse to education "Marcuse, Freire and Bloch: A Pedagogy of Hope," and a forthcoming article on multiple literacy education; in addition to several articles on the work of Paulo Freire and its contemporary relevance.

Anyway, I am very excited to participate and look forward to lively discourse and debate.

Cheers,

Rich Van Heertum

Introductory Message

Hi all. Thank you for the invitation to participate; I really appreciate it. I am probably the junior member among the group, as a doctoral candidate in education and cultural studies in education at UCLA.

My interests are broad, but center around philosophy of education, critical pedagogy and the work and legacy of Paulo Freire, media literacy, critical theory and the intersection of technology and education. My dissertation is focused on cynicism and the ways that media and schooling "teach" cynicism and political disengagement to children. I then look at ways that education can intervene against cynicism and reinvigorate civic participation and the hope necessary for social transformation.

I argue in the dissertation that beyond efforts to combat false consciousness, we must seriously engage the endemic cynicism that despoils democracy and dams the channels to change. I argue for the role of teachers as public intellectuals, the need to combine action with critique and the necessity of a more affirmative politics that can combat the ahistorical determinism that predominates today.

At UCLA, I served as program officer for the Paulo Freire Institute for two years and previously worked as a senior research associate at an educational research non-profit. I have also worked as a grant writer, an ESL instructor in Barcelona, Spain and a freelancer, publishing over a hundred articles on movies, music, art and politics. In addition, I have an MA in Economics. And I write fiction in my spare time.

Some recent articles I have published include a critique of educational research, "How Objective is Objectivity?," an article on the potential contribution of Herbert Marcuse to education "Marcuse, Freire and Bloch: A Pedagogy of Hope," and a forthcoming article on multiple literacy education; in addition to several articles on the work of Paulo Freire and its contemporary relevance.

Anyway, I am very excited to participate and look forward to lively discourse and debate.

Cheers,

Rich Van Heertum

Friday, May 19, 2006

The Immigration Debate

I complain a lot about the 8th graders' lack of interest in current events, but the immigration debate in Congress and in the streets of New York has had a big impact in my middle school. Most of it hasn't been very positive. Yesterday a group of 40 Mexican kids showed up after school ready to fight with a group of black kids after one of the kids made a nasty remark about Mexicans during school (the wonderful security guard at the school, who is also Mexican, defused the situation by telling the Mexican kids that they couldn't play soccer in the mornings if they got into a fight). There is always a lot of racial tension in the school, but recently it all seems to be directed at Mexican kids. One of my kids has been talking with me about it for the past couple of weeks, telling me that all Mexicans should go home because they are taking his jobs. I remind him every so often that there are several Mexican kids that he likes, but after allowing that maybe they shouldn't go home, he retreats into these not so suble racist one-liners we hear coming from Washington everyday.

It's interesting that the immigration debate at my school only seems to concern Mexicans since most of the school's population are immigrants and there are a lot of Latinos from South America. Occasionally some kids move beyond the "us vs. the Mexicans" debate (an Egyptian kid yesterday expressed discomfort with the term "illegal immigrant" and felt that other kids were too mean to Mexicans) and I've heard some valuable discussions taking place about what it means to be an immigrant. But every time the tensions boil over like yesterday it seems more likely that things are going to get worse here before they get better.

Angry parents

Very interesting article today in the NY Sun about the UFT's secondary charter school's lottery, which was held last night. Here's the part that's really interesting to me:
Most parents left disappointed. "I don't like the way they did this lottery system," said Yolonda Orr, whose son Karron was not chosen. "It's like putting them on an auction block." She said that she will go back to applying to the better intermediate public schools, and hopes her son be accepted into one. She said she felt that many teachers "don't care, especially in our neighborhoods - just want a paycheck."

"I'm very disappointed that he wasn't chosen," Ms. Orr said on the subway home to Brownsville. "I wanted him to go to this charter school, and get a chance to start over with something new."
It's not news that charter school lotteries are often the scene of a lot of frustration, disappointment, and bad feelings. I think what's not being talked about is that a lot of those bad feelings are directed toward charter schools themselves -- or at least toward the lottery system. A colleague of mine is doing research on students who applied for our charters but were not selected through the lottery, and has heard a lot of very negative things from parents who feel that the system was rigged.

I'm not saying charter schools should give up the lottery system. I think maybe we should rethink the way lotteries are done. It needs to be clear to parents that the system is fair. And maybe making such a big spectacle of it, while exciting for schools and the parents that get in (and the media), isn't good for charter schools in general.

On the flip side of that same argument, there are a lot of angry parents out there who desperately want a better education for their children but who were not chosen in the lottery. What is happening to those parents? If they were to get together, go to Albany, and demand that the cap be lifted, I think it would carry more weight than a bunch of people like me doing the same thing.

It's their battle.

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Ciganjur Festival 5.6 Mei 2006
Suasana Ciganjur Festifal Sabtu-Ahad 5-6 Mei 2006

Read this and you'll know ...

... why I'm in love with Elliot.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

A view from the classroom

Hello. I am delighted to accept the invitation to participate. This post will briefly introduce me.

My name is Kenneth Bernstein. Like Sherman Dorn, I am a graduate of Haverford College, in my case 1973 (although I started with the class of 1967). In 1994 I left a 20+ year career in data processing and headed off to Johns Hopkins and got certified as a school teacher (Secondary Social Studies). I have had a long interest in educational philosophy and policy, did most of a doctorate in Educational Administration and Policy Studies (emphasis on the latter) at Catholic U -- I needed about two weeks solid work to finish my dissertation proposal and defend it - doing the actual study would have been easy. Unfortunately I was then on my own dime, it was going to cost me about $6,000 and my school system (Prince George's County Maryland) pays las than an additional $600 over what I receive for a Masters + 60, and I was in my late 50's, I decided instead to let them pay for my National Boad Certification, which pays me an additional $5,000 this year and $4,000 for each of the next 9 years.

But I am still interested in philosophy and policy. I began my online bloviating by being an active participant in the old bulletin board at Educationnews.org. Because I am a political person, I got involved with political blogging during the Dean campaign, which brought me to dailykos, which brought me to a variety of other sites as well. I am also an active participant in the Assessment Reform Network of Fairtest, a place at which I encounter both Sherman and Jim Horn with regularity.

Much of my blogging is about education, broadly described. I do not claim to have the scholarly expertise of many of the participants here, although I have enough that I have felt comfortable in the role of a peer reviewer of articles for several journals in past years.

I view my writings on education - in print as well as electronically - as serving several purposes. First, I try to explain aspects of educational policy as I see and experience them in the classroom. Second, I try to make a general audience aware of the aspects of educational issues, especially as they are portrayed in general publications, but also periodically from some of the professional publications, and/or from various books.

Finally I believe that the future of public education in this country is very much in doubt. I have decided to do what is within my powers to try to preserve and even enhance it. Beyond my writing, which can best be seen in my diaries at dailykos (not all of which are about education), I have been involved in helping political candidates at a variety of levels attempt to shape and present their positions on education. And at the first Yearlykos convention, which will take place June 8-11 in Las Vegas, I am chairing the one panel on education, which will include as well Jamie Vollmer, the former businessman famous for his "Blueberry" story in which he became convinced that one could not approach education like a business, and Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, a state that will still not have high school exit exams when he leaves office in 2007.

My own approach to teaching is eclectic, with bits and pieces derived from many sources. I am an omnivour when it comes to reading about education, and thus regularly scan from sources as diverse as GLEF, ARN, EducationMatters, and Checker Finn's regular emails from Fordham.

I expect that I will learn far more from what other have to offer, but am willing to contribute my share, including doing the necessary work to place my ideas in a proper theoretical context should that be appropriate.

Again, thanks for allowing me to participate, and to learn from all of you.

A view from the classroom

Hello. I am delighted to accept the invitation to participate. This post will briefly introduce me.

My name is Kenneth Bernstein. Like Sherman Dorn, I am a graduate of Haverford College, in my case 1973 (although I started with the class of 1967). In 1994 I left a 20+ year career in data processing and headed off to Johns Hopkins and got certified as a school teacher (Secondary Social Studies). I have had a long interest in educational philosophy and policy, did most of a doctorate in Educational Administration and Policy Studies (emphasis on the latter) at Catholic U -- I needed about two weeks solid work to finish my dissertation proposal and defend it - doing the actual study would have been easy. Unfortunately I was then on my own dime, it was going to cost me about $6,000 and my school system (Prince George's County Maryland) pays las than an additional $600 over what I receive for a Masters + 60, and I was in my late 50's, I decided instead to let them pay for my National Boad Certification, which pays me an additional $5,000 this year and $4,000 for each of the next 9 years.

But I am still interested in philosophy and policy. I began my online bloviating by being an active participant in the old bulletin board at Educationnews.org. Because I am a political person, I got involved with political blogging during the Dean campaign, which brought me to dailykos, which brought me to a variety of other sites as well. I am also an active participant in the Assessment Reform Network of Fairtest, a place at which I encounter both Sherman and Jim Horn with regularity.

Much of my blogging is about education, broadly described. I do not claim to have the scholarly expertise of many of the participants here, although I have enough that I have felt comfortable in the role of a peer reviewer of articles for several journals in past years.

I view my writings on education - in print as well as electronically - as serving several purposes. First, I try to explain aspects of educational policy as I see and experience them in the classroom. Second, I try to make a general audience aware of the aspects of educational issues, especially as they are portrayed in general publications, but also periodically from some of the professional publications, and/or from various books.

Finally I believe that the future of public education in this country is very much in doubt. I have decided to do what is within my powers to try to preserve and even enhance it. Beyond my writing, which can best be seen in my diaries at dailykos (not all of which are about education), I have been involved in helping political candidates at a variety of levels attempt to shape and present their positions on education. And at the first Yearlykos convention, which will take place June 8-11 in Las Vegas, I am chairing the one panel on education, which will include as well Jamie Vollmer, the former businessman famous for his "Blueberry" story in which he became convinced that one could not approach education like a business, and Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, a state that will still not have high school exit exams when he leaves office in 2007.

My own approach to teaching is eclectic, with bits and pieces derived from many sources. I am an omnivour when it comes to reading about education, and thus regularly scan from sources as diverse as GLEF, ARN, EducationMatters, and Checker Finn's regular emails from Fordham.

I expect that I will learn far more from what other have to offer, but am willing to contribute my share, including doing the necessary work to place my ideas in a proper theoretical context should that be appropriate.

Again, thanks for allowing me to participate, and to learn from all of you.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

HCZ on CBS

A colleague tipped me off to this 60 Minutes piece on Harlem Children's Zone that aired on Sunday. HCZ gets a TON of media coverage, and they deserve every bit of it. My only beef is with the teachers union bashing toward the end. It's this kind of thing that is standing in the way of a union-charter partnership.

Monday, May 15, 2006

Of all the bad arguments for vouchers ...

... this is the worst one. It goes something like this: Catholic schools are dying. We must save them! How do we save them? Vouchers!

Isn't the big idea behind vouchers to encourage free markets in education?

Regents

Interesting article in the NY Daily News about a poorly worded question on the Regents global studies exam. Especially interesting to me since I just finished up my methods course on teaching global studies (more thoughts on the Regents here), and we talked a lot about how to teach controversial issues like this. My prof's stance (and what seem to be the general NYU stance) is to teach the controversy, which sounds logical to me. I'm sure that when I actually start teaching it will quickly dawn on me that teaching the controversy won't always be the best idea.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Censorious Epistemological Thuggery

A slightly different version of the following post appeared on Schools Matter.

The March issue of Educational Researcher has Alan Shoenfeld’s account of his disappointing and brief service to the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). WWC is a federally-contracted project that is supposedly paying the company, American Institutes for Research (AIR), to cast a wide net in search of quantitative research studies on the effectiveness of various math teaching strategies. These research studies are confined, of course, to the straightjacket definition derived by Grover Whitehurst (not Norquist) and his minions at the Institute of Educational Science (IES), whose experimental, quantitative preference lends itself perfectly to the assessment medium (standardized tests) that shaped the standard to begin with. (Some would call Grover’s experimental or quasi-experimental requirement the “gold standard”—I would call it censorious epistemological thuggery.)

Comparisons of traditional and “standards-based” (read, fuzzy) mathematics teaching strategies will be reached by measuring academic gains as measured by test scores—test scores that could very well be measuring something other than what the teaching strategy in question set out to teach. Unless protocols are developed to make sure that the range of performance results fit the characteristics of math proficiency that are aimed for, the chosen studies could be yielding, in fact, false negatives or false positives on the effects of the various strategies. Too, the evaluation studies that measure the effectiveness of math strategies must take into account the fidelity-to-design issue. In short, studies that adhere strictly to the recommended implementation of a particular strategy should be given more weight than those that are haphazard in implementing a strategy. It was, specifically, these points that Schoenfeld made and that WWC and IES ignored and attempted to censor, that precipitated Schoenfeld’s resignation and subsequent public statements. Schoenfeld's account adds additional weight to the conclusion that AIR has become the Halliburton of the IES's war on any remnant of progressive educational practice: AIR's role is to serve up whatever "research" is called for by their "client," IES, and to keep their mouths shut, otherwise. (See here and here for posts on some of AIR's other work.)

If this sad state of affairs at the base camp for the National Math Panel sounds vaguely familiar, it is because the same shenanigans were developed into a systematic strategy during the sculpting of the National Reading Panel Report to reflect the ideological commitment to the chain gang schools envisioned by neurologist cum education expert, Reid Lyon, and Professor Doug Carnine, the heir apparent to the Engelmann solution. If you think that the cherry-picking of evidence to support pre-conceived conclusions is limited to the initiation of foreign military adventures, you haven’t been paying attention to the reading wars and the math wars.

The reading war, of course, has been largely won (or lost as the case may be), at least from the evidence we have of any organized resistance. The passing out of a billion dollars a year to states in the form of federal Reading First grants, with most of it going to the favored “scientifically-based” phonics approach, guarantees the phonics rebuilding effort, via DIBELS, will continue across America, even if the conquerors have not been treated as liberators by teachers and students who remember reading as a joy rather than a job. We can rest easy, however, that there are enough mercenaries, er, contractors from AIR on the ground to make sure that these federal reading dollars are spent the way that Grover Whitehurst intended and the way that Doug Carnine and his chums can get rich selling their wares along the way.

Fortunately, we have learned a few things from the manhandling the National Reading Panel Report (see review of Coles's Reading the Naked Truth . . . ). We have learned that these propagandizing bullies will stop at nothing to get their way, and that includes the censoring of knowledge that might intrude upon the preconceived conclusions demanded by their own backwards-gazing form of cultural antiquarianism. Shoenfeld, then, has provided a service to the possibility for democracy's future, because it is the bright light of exposure that will eventually force these totalitarian elements back under the rocks from whence they came.

Censorious Epistemological Thuggery

A slightly different version of the following post appeared on Schools Matter.

The March issue of Educational Researcher has Alan Shoenfeld’s account of his disappointing and brief service to the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). WWC is a federally-contracted project that is supposedly paying the company, American Institutes for Research (AIR), to cast a wide net in search of quantitative research studies on the effectiveness of various math teaching strategies. These research studies are confined, of course, to the straightjacket definition derived by Grover Whitehurst (not Norquist) and his minions at the Institute of Educational Science (IES), whose experimental, quantitative preference lends itself perfectly to the assessment medium (standardized tests) that shaped the standard to begin with. (Some would call Grover’s experimental or quasi-experimental requirement the “gold standard”—I would call it censorious epistemological thuggery.)

Comparisons of traditional and “standards-based” (read, fuzzy) mathematics teaching strategies will be reached by measuring academic gains as measured by test scores—test scores that could very well be measuring something other than what the teaching strategy in question set out to teach. Unless protocols are developed to make sure that the range of performance results fit the characteristics of math proficiency that are aimed for, the chosen studies could be yielding, in fact, false negatives or false positives on the effects of the various strategies. Too, the evaluation studies that measure the effectiveness of math strategies must take into account the fidelity-to-design issue. In short, studies that adhere strictly to the recommended implementation of a particular strategy should be given more weight than those that are haphazard in implementing a strategy. It was, specifically, these points that Schoenfeld made and that WWC and IES ignored and attempted to censor, that precipitated Schoenfeld’s resignation and subsequent public statements. Schoenfeld's account adds additional weight to the conclusion that AIR has become the Halliburton of the IES's war on any remnant of progressive educational practice: AIR's role is to serve up whatever "research" is called for by their "client," IES, and to keep their mouths shut, otherwise. (See here and here for posts on some of AIR's other work.)

If this sad state of affairs at the base camp for the National Math Panel sounds vaguely familiar, it is because the same shenanigans were developed into a systematic strategy during the sculpting of the National Reading Panel Report to reflect the ideological commitment to the chain gang schools envisioned by neurologist cum education expert, Reid Lyon, and Professor Doug Carnine, the heir apparent to the Engelmann solution. If you think that the cherry-picking of evidence to support pre-conceived conclusions is limited to the initiation of foreign military adventures, you haven’t been paying attention to the reading wars and the math wars.

The reading war, of course, has been largely won (or lost as the case may be), at least from the evidence we have of any organized resistance. The passing out of a billion dollars a year to states in the form of federal Reading First grants, with most of it going to the favored “scientifically-based” phonics approach, guarantees the phonics rebuilding effort, via DIBELS, will continue across America, even if the conquerors have not been treated as liberators by teachers and students who remember reading as a joy rather than a job. We can rest easy, however, that there are enough mercenaries, er, contractors from AIR on the ground to make sure that these federal reading dollars are spent the way that Grover Whitehurst intended and the way that Doug Carnine and his chums can get rich selling their wares along the way.

Fortunately, we have learned a few things from the manhandling the National Reading Panel Report (see review of Coles's Reading the Naked Truth . . . ). We have learned that these propagandizing bullies will stop at nothing to get their way, and that includes the censoring of knowledge that might intrude upon the preconceived conclusions demanded by their own backwards-gazing form of cultural antiquarianism. Shoenfeld, then, has provided a service to the possibility for democracy's future, because it is the bright light of exposure that will eventually force these totalitarian elements back under the rocks from whence they came.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Confused

Weird editorial in today's NY Times. The gist: weak charter school oversight makes weak charter schools. No argument there. The weird thing is that they draw from a study published a year ago by the Evaluation Center at Western Michigan, and don't even mention a more recent (albeit potentially biased) study on the same topic. (Thought I was always under the impression that the Evaluation Center was biased toward charter schools itself.)

The thing I really don't get is why the NY Times has suddenly become so frosty toward charter schools. Conventional wisdom around here is that there's someone within the organization that's pushing for a negative position.

This may be paranoid, but it almost seems like there's a coordinated effort to spread the idea that charter schools are private schools at the NY Times. Check out the last line of today's editorial:
To salvage the charter movement, the states will need to abandon the strategy, now discredited, that consists largely of giving public money to what are basically private schools and then looking the other way.
I really, really don't get it. Does anyone out there?

Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Shameless

My hat is off to Eduwonk for doing the impossible: I've been trying forever to figure out a way to somehow make American Idol relevant to education policy so that I could express the School of Bloggers' undying love for Elliot Yamin.

Elliot less resembles any recognizable education figure than he does a goat, hence the School of Bloggers' affectionate nickname for him: Goat Boy. Chris loves him because he is a true underdog -- afflicted with partial deafness, diabetes, allergies, among other things, he is a natural poster boy for a half dozen disease-related organizations. Also, he's a high school dropout who earned his GED after learning the value of hard work. I love him because he has a voice that makes me want to do this.

Unfortunately, if all the gambling experts are correct, this could be the last night for America to see Elliot. So if you love education, charter schools, or children, watch tonight and vote for Elliot!

Monday, May 8, 2006

Have a Great Summer!


Thank you for an enjoyable year of sharing my WSJ thoughts and experiences with you. I hope you have benefited.
Have a great summer!

Have a Great Summer!


Thank you for an enjoyable year of sharing my WSJ thoughts and experiences with you. I hope you have benefited.
Have a great summer!

Have a Great Summer!


Thank you for an enjoyable year of sharing my WSJ thoughts and experiences with you. I hope you have benefited.
Have a great summer!

Thursday, May 4, 2006

Consider This

As the school year draws to a close, there are a few things that you may wish to consider. You might be surprised how little time it will take for you to get some inspiration and great ideas to use the Journal in your classes - regardless of your discipline, student body, or class sizes.

Think about using the Wall Street Journal in your classes next fall. As you draft your syllabus sometime this summer, you can add this feature in big ways or in small ways. I have provided numerous integration ideas in previous blogs. Take a few minutes to review some of them to see how you might begin using the Journal in your classroom. Now is the time to take advantage of the incredibly low subscription rate of only $19.95 for 15 weeks this fall.

If you have already integrated the Journal, consider increasing your integration of the Journal in the fall. Maybe now is the time to expand your integration as you reflect on the success of your efforts. A quick review of some previous blog entries might help with some new ideas.

Consider trying the Journal in your summer school classes. The 6-week summer subscription costs only $8.95. If you are concerned about requiring an extra fee for your students for spring or fall terms, you can experiment with integration of the Journal for a very low fee this summer.

Consider an Academic Partnership with Dow Jones. If several professors at your school are using the Journal, you may want to consider joining with the Wall Street Journal in this program. Participants include many of the best business schools in the country. My school has been an Academic Partner for a couple of years and we have appreciated the benefits from the program – even more teaching resources to help us in the classroom. More professors have integrated the Journal and students are seeing connections between courses. Contact the Journal through www.ProfessorJournal.com for more information on this very interesting and beneficial program.

Consider browsing through ProfessorJournal.com. This website is full of valuable resources designed especially for college instructors. You can also sign up to received weekly emails featuring summaries of selected articles written by your peers. You can read, download, and order everything you need to begin using the Journal in your classes.

Have a great, restful, and productive summer!

Consider This

As the school year draws to a close, there are a few things that you may wish to consider. You might be surprised how little time it will take for you to get some inspiration and great ideas to use the Journal in your classes - regardless of your discipline, student body, or class sizes.

Think about using the Wall Street Journal in your classes next fall. As you draft your syllabus sometime this summer, you can add this feature in big ways or in small ways. I have provided numerous integration ideas in previous blogs. Take a few minutes to review some of them to see how you might begin using the Journal in your classroom. Now is the time to take advantage of the incredibly low subscription rate of only $19.95 for 15 weeks this fall.

If you have already integrated the Journal, consider increasing your integration of the Journal in the fall. Maybe now is the time to expand your integration as you reflect on the success of your efforts. A quick review of some previous blog entries might help with some new ideas.

Consider trying the Journal in your summer school classes. The 6-week summer subscription costs only $8.95. If you are concerned about requiring an extra fee for your students for spring or fall terms, you can experiment with integration of the Journal for a very low fee this summer.

Consider an Academic Partnership with Dow Jones. If several professors at your school are using the Journal, you may want to consider joining with the Wall Street Journal in this program. Participants include many of the best business schools in the country. My school has been an Academic Partner for a couple of years and we have appreciated the benefits from the program – even more teaching resources to help us in the classroom. More professors have integrated the Journal and students are seeing connections between courses. Contact the Journal through www.ProfessorJournal.com for more information on this very interesting and beneficial program.

Consider browsing through ProfessorJournal.com. This website is full of valuable resources designed especially for college instructors. You can also sign up to received weekly emails featuring summaries of selected articles written by your peers. You can read, download, and order everything you need to begin using the Journal in your classes.

Have a great, restful, and productive summer!

Consider This

As the school year draws to a close, there are a few things that you may wish to consider. You might be surprised how little time it will take for you to get some inspiration and great ideas to use the Journal in your classes - regardless of your discipline, student body, or class sizes.

Think about using the Wall Street Journal in your classes next fall. As you draft your syllabus sometime this summer, you can add this feature in big ways or in small ways. I have provided numerous integration ideas in previous blogs. Take a few minutes to review some of them to see how you might begin using the Journal in your classroom. Now is the time to take advantage of the incredibly low subscription rate of only $19.95 for 15 weeks this fall.

If you have already integrated the Journal, consider increasing your integration of the Journal in the fall. Maybe now is the time to expand your integration as you reflect on the success of your efforts. A quick review of some previous blog entries might help with some new ideas.

Consider trying the Journal in your summer school classes. The 6-week summer subscription costs only $8.95. If you are concerned about requiring an extra fee for your students for spring or fall terms, you can experiment with integration of the Journal for a very low fee this summer.

Consider an Academic Partnership with Dow Jones. If several professors at your school are using the Journal, you may want to consider joining with the Wall Street Journal in this program. Participants include many of the best business schools in the country. My school has been an Academic Partner for a couple of years and we have appreciated the benefits from the program – even more teaching resources to help us in the classroom. More professors have integrated the Journal and students are seeing connections between courses. Contact the Journal through www.ProfessorJournal.com for more information on this very interesting and beneficial program.

Consider browsing through ProfessorJournal.com. This website is full of valuable resources designed especially for college instructors. You can also sign up to received weekly emails featuring summaries of selected articles written by your peers. You can read, download, and order everything you need to begin using the Journal in your classes.

Have a great, restful, and productive summer!

Wednesday, May 3, 2006

Educating Teachers


I am new to The Wall but not new to education and its social foundations. Since 1985, I have devoted enormous amounts of time and energy to the education of teachers. I use the term “education” (rather than training or even preparation) to emphasize one critical point about teaching at any level: one must be broadly and deeply educated to teach well. It matters not if one is teaching second graders, sophomores in high school, seniors in college or adolescents in Sunday school.

The precise nature of that education has generated lots of heat and occasional light over the past century. Perhaps the most astute commentary about the effort to improve teacher education was offered by former Harvard President James Bryant Conant when he called the issue “a power struggle among professors.” (The Education of American Teachers, 1963). It remains a power struggle. In today’s iteration, the debate seems to pit teacher unions and ed schools (“the education establishment” bent solely on maintaining their monopoly) against “reformers” operating out of institutions like the Fordham Foundation (who seek to bring sense, rigor, and of course “choice” to teacher education). That characterization is, of course, too simple.

At a minimum, I’d argue, a teacher should understand some body of knowledge quite well and, moreover, understand how that body of knowledge crosses paths, overlaps and leavens other bodies of knowledge. A teacher should know quite a lot about human behavior, seen in its individual, social and cultural faces. And that teacher should recognize that education is a political act, that schools of any kind embody political and economic values, serve political and economic purposes and have political and economic ramifications. (By the way, it’s not “bad” that education is a political act; it just is. It is only bad if we fool ourselves into thinking our own motives and understanding are pure, while the motives of others are political.)

I find it helpful to think about education as human interaction with two aspects -- one academic (what’s worth knowing), one moral (what’s worth doing). It is, I think, possible to view any educational scenario from either of these standpoints. It is not so easy – given the limitations of human attention and the tendency to categorize -- to recognize both at one and the same moment. But it is in fact impossible to avoid – ever – either aspect of what we do when we educate. Our impact is always both academic and moral.

I say all this not simply by way of introduction, but by way of response to an editorial by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof that appeared last week. Kristof joined the chorus of voices who maintain that teachers need no credentials (or competence) beyond “intellectual brilliance” and “personality.” He addresses a growing teacher shortage by recommending that we “relax the barriers so people can enter teaching more easily.” The barrier he has in mind is teacher certification, a function of the work that I do. I find myself grateful to Kristof who forces me to examine my lived reality as a teacher educator just as I join the merry band at The Wall.

Kristof rightly highlights the role that changing gender expectations has played in our present teacher shortage. Forty years ago, smart women who sought careers would have few options beyond teaching. Today their options seem limitless. Forty years ago, those smart women would have accepted relatively low wages, grateful to be working in a setting that challenged them intellectually, psychologically and emotionally. Today, women recognize that they can and ought to be compensated for the level of challenge a position offers. Forty years ago, women did not expect to support anyone but themselves. Today, women are often supporting a family.

The puzzle is that Kristof fails to follow his own logic. If the smart women (and men) who were teachers forty years ago have departed, both because of unattractive wages and unattractive professional constraints, then why not reconstruct a teacher’s position to make it more attractive to those with intellectual brilliance and personality? Provide teachers with the interlaced autonomy and (multi-faceted) accountability that NCLB has removed and pay them a wage that reflects the difference they make in children’s lives. Teacher education will have to change to accommodate the new reality of the teaching profession.

Instead Kristof is saying that there are brilliant, personable folks who want in and we would solve all our problems (quality and quantity) if we would just let them in. A little bit of training (such as that offered by Teach for America for instance) would focus the brilliance and personality in the right direction. Young graduates of prestigious schools and accomplished career-changers should be welcomed. (I agree with that last claim, by the way.)

The problem is that Kristof takes the other side in a false dichotomy that teacher educators have helped to construct – i.e. either teachers must be graduates of a university-based teacher preparation program or they need no particular education at all. Both positions beg the real question: how does one learn to teach?

The answer is deceptively simply but extraordinarily complicated. One learns to teach by teaching -- if one is able to see and interpret the relevant circumstances and factors, frame possible options for action, and anticipate the consequences of any particular instructional interaction. If any readers perceive a Deweyan spin on this view, you’re not imagining. It’s there.

This, by the way, is not an answer unique to teaching. One learns to practice medicine by practicing, but in the absence of background science knowledge, understanding of human development, and coaching by master practitioners it’s hard to make sense of the practice. One learns to write by writing, but without being able to recognize good writing (through reading) or having a basic skill set, it’s slow going. One learns to walk a tightrope by doing so, but doesn’t start on the high wire without a net.

So the real question is when is someone “safe to practice”? At what point do we allow a doctor or a writer or a high wire artist – or a teacher -- to ply their craft without a net? When is a brilliant person with personality going to do children more good than harm?

We are all guilty of failing to face up to that question. Teachers unions, school administrators, and policy makers join teacher educators and folks who share Mr. Kristof’s viewpoint in missing the point. The question is not whether teachers need a degree in education or not. The question is how do we structure an educational system that builds in roles and supports that let prospective teachers (preferably brilliant persons with personality!) grow in understanding of the factors, the options for action, the possible consequences – and the shared values that ultimately ground decision-making?

Universities have a role to play in the education of teachers but I’m pretty well convinced they simply can’t do it alone. Differentiated staffing and compensation probably needs to be an element in this picture. Restructured schools, collaborative teaching and learning, individualized instruction, IEPs for every student – these actions would make it possible for bright young liberal arts graduates and career changers to make a contribution to schools while learning what Alan Tom called “a moral craft.”

Nicholas Kristof is wrong when he assumes that teaching requires nothing more than good intentions, a quick wit and an agile mind. Like other professions, it is a practice. Like other professions, teaching must be learned in the presence of and with support from those who have mastered the practice. But it will not be learned in the absence of prior and simultaneous learning about some body of knowledge, about the nature of human action and interaction, and about the social and institutional contexts in which teaching and learning take place. The challenge is to create the system that does that while also safeguarding the precious time and talent of the learners entrusted to us.

I look forward to responses to this post and to the opportunity to share my (always developing) thoughts in the weeks and months to come.

Educating Teachers


I am new to The Wall but not new to education and its social foundations. Since 1985, I have devoted enormous amounts of time and energy to the education of teachers. I use the term “education” (rather than training or even preparation) to emphasize one critical point about teaching at any level: one must be broadly and deeply educated to teach well. It matters not if one is teaching second graders, sophomores in high school, seniors in college or adolescents in Sunday school.

The precise nature of that education has generated lots of heat and occasional light over the past century. Perhaps the most astute commentary about the effort to improve teacher education was offered by former Harvard President James Bryant Conant when he called the issue “a power struggle among professors.” (The Education of American Teachers, 1963). It remains a power struggle. In today’s iteration, the debate seems to pit teacher unions and ed schools (“the education establishment” bent solely on maintaining their monopoly) against “reformers” operating out of institutions like the Fordham Foundation (who seek to bring sense, rigor, and of course “choice” to teacher education). That characterization is, of course, too simple.

At a minimum, I’d argue, a teacher should understand some body of knowledge quite well and, moreover, understand how that body of knowledge crosses paths, overlaps and leavens other bodies of knowledge. A teacher should know quite a lot about human behavior, seen in its individual, social and cultural faces. And that teacher should recognize that education is a political act, that schools of any kind embody political and economic values, serve political and economic purposes and have political and economic ramifications. (By the way, it’s not “bad” that education is a political act; it just is. It is only bad if we fool ourselves into thinking our own motives and understanding are pure, while the motives of others are political.)

I find it helpful to think about education as human interaction with two aspects -- one academic (what’s worth knowing), one moral (what’s worth doing). It is, I think, possible to view any educational scenario from either of these standpoints. It is not so easy – given the limitations of human attention and the tendency to categorize -- to recognize both at one and the same moment. But it is in fact impossible to avoid – ever – either aspect of what we do when we educate. Our impact is always both academic and moral.

I say all this not simply by way of introduction, but by way of response to an editorial by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof that appeared last week. Kristof joined the chorus of voices who maintain that teachers need no credentials (or competence) beyond “intellectual brilliance” and “personality.” He addresses a growing teacher shortage by recommending that we “relax the barriers so people can enter teaching more easily.” The barrier he has in mind is teacher certification, a function of the work that I do. I find myself grateful to Kristof who forces me to examine my lived reality as a teacher educator just as I join the merry band at The Wall.

Kristof rightly highlights the role that changing gender expectations has played in our present teacher shortage. Forty years ago, smart women who sought careers would have few options beyond teaching. Today their options seem limitless. Forty years ago, those smart women would have accepted relatively low wages, grateful to be working in a setting that challenged them intellectually, psychologically and emotionally. Today, women recognize that they can and ought to be compensated for the level of challenge a position offers. Forty years ago, women did not expect to support anyone but themselves. Today, women are often supporting a family.

The puzzle is that Kristof fails to follow his own logic. If the smart women (and men) who were teachers forty years ago have departed, both because of unattractive wages and unattractive professional constraints, then why not reconstruct a teacher’s position to make it more attractive to those with intellectual brilliance and personality? Provide teachers with the interlaced autonomy and (multi-faceted) accountability that NCLB has removed and pay them a wage that reflects the difference they make in children’s lives. Teacher education will have to change to accommodate the new reality of the teaching profession.

Instead Kristof is saying that there are brilliant, personable folks who want in and we would solve all our problems (quality and quantity) if we would just let them in. A little bit of training (such as that offered by Teach for America for instance) would focus the brilliance and personality in the right direction. Young graduates of prestigious schools and accomplished career-changers should be welcomed. (I agree with that last claim, by the way.)

The problem is that Kristof takes the other side in a false dichotomy that teacher educators have helped to construct – i.e. either teachers must be graduates of a university-based teacher preparation program or they need no particular education at all. Both positions beg the real question: how does one learn to teach?

The answer is deceptively simply but extraordinarily complicated. One learns to teach by teaching -- if one is able to see and interpret the relevant circumstances and factors, frame possible options for action, and anticipate the consequences of any particular instructional interaction. If any readers perceive a Deweyan spin on this view, you’re not imagining. It’s there.

This, by the way, is not an answer unique to teaching. One learns to practice medicine by practicing, but in the absence of background science knowledge, understanding of human development, and coaching by master practitioners it’s hard to make sense of the practice. One learns to write by writing, but without being able to recognize good writing (through reading) or having a basic skill set, it’s slow going. One learns to walk a tightrope by doing so, but doesn’t start on the high wire without a net.

So the real question is when is someone “safe to practice”? At what point do we allow a doctor or a writer or a high wire artist – or a teacher -- to ply their craft without a net? When is a brilliant person with personality going to do children more good than harm?

We are all guilty of failing to face up to that question. Teachers unions, school administrators, and policy makers join teacher educators and folks who share Mr. Kristof’s viewpoint in missing the point. The question is not whether teachers need a degree in education or not. The question is how do we structure an educational system that builds in roles and supports that let prospective teachers (preferably brilliant persons with personality!) grow in understanding of the factors, the options for action, the possible consequences – and the shared values that ultimately ground decision-making?

Universities have a role to play in the education of teachers but I’m pretty well convinced they simply can’t do it alone. Differentiated staffing and compensation probably needs to be an element in this picture. Restructured schools, collaborative teaching and learning, individualized instruction, IEPs for every student – these actions would make it possible for bright young liberal arts graduates and career changers to make a contribution to schools while learning what Alan Tom called “a moral craft.”

Nicholas Kristof is wrong when he assumes that teaching requires nothing more than good intentions, a quick wit and an agile mind. Like other professions, it is a practice. Like other professions, teaching must be learned in the presence of and with support from those who have mastered the practice. But it will not be learned in the absence of prior and simultaneous learning about some body of knowledge, about the nature of human action and interaction, and about the social and institutional contexts in which teaching and learning take place. The challenge is to create the system that does that while also safeguarding the precious time and talent of the learners entrusted to us.

I look forward to responses to this post and to the opportunity to share my (always developing) thoughts in the weeks and months to come.

Update on Amadou Ly

The NY Times ran this article yesterday about the show of support for Amadou Ly, an undocumented high school student from Senegal on an award-winning robotics team. It's great to see stories like this about the impact of the broken immigration system in this country on the lives of hard-working immigrants, and it seems like a lot of people can be moved to do something about it, at least in individual cases.

Tuesday, May 2, 2006

Dalam rangka Hari Pendidikan Nasional,Sekolah Alam mau ngadain:Ciganjur FestivalSabtu-Minggu, 6-7 Mei 2006di Sekolah Alam Kampus Ciganjur,Jl. Anda 7x Ciganjur(depan Kelurahan Ciganjur)Jakarta SelatanPkl 08.30 - 13.00Pada dateng ya...Acaranya seru-seru loh!Ada Science Fair 4 Preschool(pameran science-nya anak PG dan TK)Ada Market Day - pasarnya anak SA.Ada Outbound.Ada talkshow tentangParadigma

A Day without Immigrants

Although it seems like the pro-immigrant rallies in NYC (NY Times article here) weren't as large as in other major cities (AP article via MSN here, LA Times article here), the impact of the "Day without Immigrants" was certainly noticeable at my school. The halls were pretty quiet all day long, and a number of teachers told me that most of their Latino students didn't attend school. A bunch of my kids (all Latinos) came to school but skipped after school to attend rallies with their parents or older siblings. They all called it a "huelga," or strike, instead of a rally or boycott, and seemed pretty excited to take part in it. One undocumented kid stayed in after school and told me a few too many times that he wasn't scared of immigration officials at the rallies. Even with the massive show of force by immigrants around the country in recent rallies, the fact that this kid was still scared shows how pervasive the fear is in some immigrant communities.

Interestingly, as the NY Times article points out, there was a real division among the different immigrant populations. Almost all of the South and East Asian students came to school, and most of the Asian kids I talked to didn't seem very interested in what was going on. This is probably a function of the organizing power of the Latino media and the fact that there are more Latino immigrants than other groups. Still, it seems like these rallies creating more of a Latino movement (and from what I can tell there are even divisions between recent immigrants from Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, etc and immigrants from the Dominican Republic) and not necessarily a movement that extends to all immigrant populations.