The Myth of the Myth of the Myth of America's Failing Public School System

For years now the American public has simply accepted as fact that its public school system is "a failure" - this despite the overall satisfaction with their own schools and their own education.  Thus, of course, it's not surprising that we have a "failure" in perception about our "failing public schools."  The conventional wisdom is always drawing from shocking statistics and disappointing standardized test scores, as well as comparisons of schools to other nations.  This "truth" by comparison is the most troubling, and it seems to never end.  Thomas Friedman mentioned it again this week in the New York Times.  The problem is the validity of the comparison.

However, recently some education writers have been parsing the data and challenging the notion that our schools are "failing" or that "we have  fallen behind the rest of the world."  And that has unleashed debate about whether America's schools are "failing" or whether that's a myth.  As I've noted before, Mel Riddile of the National Association of Secondary School Principals NASSP was the first to parse the poverty data - and argue that international comparisons are flawed and, minus our high poverty schools, the United States actually leads the world in test scores.  As Riddile points out, America has much higher poverty than the leading nations like Finland and Singapore, and when we remove the scores of high poverty schools to more accurately compare conditions, America's test scores actually top the list.  Interestingly, then, when our bottom thirty percent of schools are taken out of the equation, we have the best  schools in the world.

Michael Lind took up the case as well this week of "America's failing public schools" in an article for Salon that argued again that this failure is a myth, and that a culture of poverty is the root of the problem.  In following up on Riddile's research, Lind argues - accurately I'd say - that our school system is not  "failing" because our poorest and most disadvantaged kids are  not succeeding.  Certainly, we can not be proud of these conditions or accept them.  However, if 70% of kids are doing well, going to college, and posting reasonable scores, it's  tough to argue the public education system is a failure.  I argued this years ago after Sean Hannity indicted the entire system.  Systemic failure is simply not true - for if the system had been failing for  all these years then the effects on the nation would be profound.  And America is not failing.

Granted, the explanation is tough to accept, and it seems to be a cop out to say that  kids  are simply failing because they are poor.  And education blogger Marilyn Rhames challenges Lind's position by arguing about the lack of opportunities and poor  schools for the bottom 30%.  She is not  wrong about the poor state of these  schools - though she is a bit mistaken when she blames the school, as opposed to seeing a school  as a reflection of a much larger problem.  Certainly, all kids  can achieve, and the most  disadvantaged  actually need the most  education.  However, she cannot deny that  successfully educating  poor, disadvantaged minority and immigrant children is literally the toughest task in education.  It's just not  that easy to overcome all the barriers to success.

And, of course, education seems to be the only field where 100% success is the standard and the only acceptable result.  Thus, the issue is more complex than any of these  writers makes it.  But, Lind and Riddile are correct in asserting the successes of the system, even as Friedman and Rhames have points in challenging the failures.

In a World of "Text"-ing, Teach Kids How to Write

Walt Gardner opines in EdWeek that in a world obsessed with STEM skills, schools are neglecting to teach kids the important skills of reading and writing.  Making insightful observations about the gap between "grammar skills" and fluent writing, Gardner notes - and laments - the receding writing skills associated with kids immersed in a world of text messages.  This point was aptly addressed in a recent LA Times commentary.  The loss of writing skills is negatively impacting the business world and the ability to being to access the jobs and lives they desire.  Importantly, Gardner reminds us that being an effective writer is intrinsically linked to being an effective reader.  It's not enough to assign kids reading and writing.  English teachers at all levels - including college - need to teach kids "how to read" and "how to write."

Special Education Blog Posts

Occasionally, Online University offers their list of "50 Best Blogs for Teachers," and if you're interested, it's always worth checking out to see who is saying what.  The most recently updated list is the "50 Best Blogs for Special Education Teachers."

Financial Advice for New College Students

I still remember my first trip to my dorm mailbox during my freshman year at the University of Illinois (twenty years ago).  I could barely open the mailbox door from all the credit card offers which were jammed into the little box.  Luckily, growing up in a family of responsible credit - and having a card since I was probably eleven - I didn't fall prey to the offers of unlimited cash.  However, thinking about that reminds me of the important challenges faced by college freshman as they move out of the nest for the first time.  Some of the greatest challenges come outside the classroom - and they require astute financial literacy and self control.

That said, the Denver Post Lifestyle page has a great feature today on financial advice for college freshman - and as we head into August and the minivans are packed, parents should consider having "the talk."  That is the discussion about not digging a financial hole during their first step into adulthood.  Among advice the Denver Post offers:

• Keep a budget and track your spending.

• Avoid using credit whenever you can, and seek out discounts, especially on those common college expenses like books, hoodies, and ... late night pizza.

• Drink water - for financial AND physical health.

College should be a great time and an educational experience - both in and out of the classroom.  America's financial literacy is not in great shape these days.  Hopefully, the next generation of adults will - with some advice - learn to make better decisions.

"Blade Runner" Oscar Pistorious Has No More "Advantage" Than Others

South African Olympic runner Oscar Pistorious - who just  happens to be a double-amputee who runs with prosthetic "blades"- made history this week by running in the Olympics, not the para-Olympics.  Though he failed to qualify for  the finals after he placed seventh in his semi-final heat of the 400-meter race, he actually made history by even competing.  Making it to the semi-finals was a bonus beyond anyone's wildest expectations.  Oscar's story is one of the incredibly inspirational narrative that we only understand when events like the Olympics bring them to light.  It is a feel-good story that wouldn't seem to have a downside.  However, people never cease to amaze.  Perhaps the more disheartening side of the story is the struggle he went through - not all his life as a double amputee but - when some athletes and countries protested his initial inclusion in the Games because his prosthetic blades gave him an "unfair advantage" over  athletes running on two legs.  I know, I know.  It was certainly baffling.  Obviously, the loss of his legs as a child should certainly outweigh any "bionic" advantage the blades give him.  Alas, the man who has become affectionately known as "Blade Runner" fought through even more adversity for the right to compete, and has given the world new perspective on the idea of disability.

However, the controversial issue of Blade Runner's alleged "advantage" got me thinking about how to gauge and measure that very concept.  In reality, countless athletes from "advantaged" nations have advantages and benefits that allow them - and their countries - to excel at the games.  Isn't superior coaching based on national - or private - funding a huge and instrumental "advantage" in athletic achievement?  Consider the physical and emotional advantages gleaned by middle class suburban American kids who can have paid coaches and well funded athletic programs from the time they are six years old.  That is a nearly insurmountable advantage over smaller - and less well funded  - countries.  Can anyone deny the advantage that money plays in American and Chinese dominance in swimming and gymnastics?  And, what about the role of adequate - or even exceptional - health care and nutritional opportunities?  Michael Phelps was supposedly on a 12,000-calorie diet during his rigorous training regimen.  That opportunity doesn't exist for many aspiring Olympians - especially in places like the Ivory Coast or Guatemala or Sri Lanka.

Clearly, the athletes of the most highly developed and well funded nations - especially the USA - have considerable advantages over others.  Thus, parsing the issue to challenge the right of Oscar Pistorious based on his "advantage" was really quite ridiculous.  Instead, congratulations and accolades are due for Oscar "Blade Runner" Pistorious who has enabled us to redefine our ideas about what is possible.

USA vs. Chinese Athletic Models - No Contest

By now the news is out that Chinese diver Wu Min Xia's family kept secret from her the deaths of both her grandparents, as well as her mother's long battle with breast cancer, until after she competed in the Olympics and won a gold medal.  This story has sparked discussion and outrage from parents across the western world - and even generated criticism among some Chinese - about the Chinese government's - and Chinese "Tiger Mom" culture's - model for winning at all costs.

At what costs?  Just a child's humanity.

For a country and a culture so steeped in the traditions of family, this mindset is not only rather disheartening, it is also fundamentally wrong.  Having lived in Taiwan for five years, I am familiar with the nature of a culture that is incredibly driven for success - sometimes to the point of neglecting basics of childhood and humanity.  Teaching English there, I knew the enormous pressure these kids faced to pass an English test to "get into" a college-bound junior high school.  Certainly, the Taiwanese students excel academically.  However, they are so hyper-focused in narrow models of achievement that their students don't attend schools with numerous sports and art and music and clubs and activities and student government - all the components that Americans prefer as part of a well-rounded education.  When Taiwanese (or Chinese or Japanese or Korean) students show an aptitude for something valued by society - like math skills or athletic talent - they are enrolled in programs to pursue it full-time.  That's what led Wu Minxia to pursue diving full-time from the age of six in pursuit of Olympic gold - to the exclusion of almost all other aspects of life - including family.

Contrast that model with new international swimming superstar Missy Franklin.  Missy Franklin is an Olympic medalist and an international sensation.  She still lives in the community of her youth, going to high school and swimming for her high school team and the Colorado club that she has been with since childhood. She still has her original swim coach, and she has turned down opportunities to move to "a swim state" like California and train full time with professional coaches in national Olympic development programs.  Her parents - and she - explain that moving away from Colorado and leaving her friends and family would simply not make her happy. And it certainly wouldn't make her a "better swimmer" with a better chance for success.  She's already at the top of her game.  Thus, Missy Franklin and her parents chose quality of life - family, friends, community - over winning at all costs.

Missy Franklin and Wu Minxia are both superstar female athletes.  Both will be considered among the top female athletes of all time.  Both have won Olympic medals.  Yet, Missy Franklin is incredibly close with her family, still living in the community of her youth, swimming for her high school team, going to prom and the mall, dancing with friends before events, and living the life of a suburban team.  Missy Franklin still shares fond memories of swim meets at her neighborhood pool where she and her close friends would play cards while sitting on their towels between races.  She has turned down millions in endorsement money, so she can still swim with her high school team and join a college swim team, experiencing another step in "growing up."  Wu Minxia, by contrast, was taken from her family by the age of six for daily training in a diving facility, and she moved permanently into a government athletic institute by age sixteen.  She was so far removed from her family - physically and emotionally - that she knew nothing of the deaths of her grandparents and illness of her mother.

Which model would you choose for your child?

Homeschool, Market Forces, School Choice, and the Future of Public Education

In doing work for an administrative licensing program this summer, I came across the concept of the Grammar of Schooling and the idea of "real school" - that is, the way school is supposed to be.  And, with everything I've been reading and writing about in terms of a paradigm shift in education, I was intrigued by the "stickiness" of certain models in education.  For the most part, despite a century of public school reform, public education has looked the same for about 150 years.  Before that, by the way, the concept didn't really exist.  But the notion of "real school" stuck with me, especially as innovations like the Khan Academy and Coursera have challenged the conventional wisdom about seat time and contact hours.  And as I've noted before, Anya Kamenetz has published some excellent analysis of the shift in education which she is calling "DIY-U" - that is "Do It Yourself University."

The term "real school" surfaced again this weekend as I read Quinn Cummings WSJ article "My Education in Homeschooling." Ms. Cummings addressed her year-long experiment in home schooling and challenged many of the traditional norms about the practice - such as religious zealotry and the fear of society, as well as the warnings about under-socialized kids.  Cumming's arguments and insight were quite inspired and erudite, but I was also intrigued by her assertions about "real school" - as in the neighborhood school that her friends and neighbors would ask about.  She poses the interesting prediction that "... many Americans will adapt to the new social and economic realities.  Online classes have already become part of the extended curriculum for many students.  In the iTunes version of public education, relevant learning experiences will originate from the large red brick building, from a recreation center, from a music studio in Seattle or a lecture hall in London.  It won't be home schooling, but 'roam' schooling."

Ms. Cummings imagines a day when kids spend some time at their brick and mortar school, but it is not a regimented day if they don't want it to be so.  Because they will leave that school for more internship and experiential education such as "two afternoons a week, he logs into an art seminar being taught in Paris ... or takes computer classes at community college .... or studies web design on YouTube ... or practices Spanish on Skype ... or studies AP Chemistry with a tutor at the local library."  All these ideas break the mold of required seat time, which I support.  However, they also depend heavily on highly motivated students and parents, and are likely to work well for the middle class and affluent, but fail miserably for those most in need of education.  And, of course, despite the growth and value of online learning, there are still many intangibles that give superiority to lively, engaging classrooms in the traditional Socratic model.

Certainly, A Teacher's View is always about whatever works.  And, I view with suspicion the continued adaptation of market models promoted by people like the the Gates Foundation.  In fact, Elizabeth Stokes of the Next New Deal offers some valuable insight and criticism into those market models in an article for Salon.  She also offers a great link to Daniel Pink's Wash Post expose on the flawed ideas behind market forces such as merit pay or pay for performance.  However, back to the original point about "real school" and the way things ought to be.  I'd argue that institutions in society remain for good reasons - overall, they work.  However, that is not to say we can't - or shouldn't - expand our ideas about what "real school" really is.

WSJ Editorial - High Hopes for School Choice in Michigan

Some education reform advocates place a great deal of emphasis on school choice - notably the development of charter schools and the use of vouchers - as the magic formula to "fix failing schools" in poor neighborhoods.  The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal picks up this mantra today with a hopeful position on new charter programs in "two of Michigan's most [troubled] districts" - Muskegon Heights and Highland Park.  Because both districts have struggled financially, they are handing over management to private charter school operator's "to save money."  The WSJ - and many other choice advocates - see this as a grand experiment that will change the face of school reform.

If it works, I am all for it.  Though, I view with suspicion a plan for school reform that was hatched simply as a way of making money.  And I have doubts about a charter school model which can turn around a "neighborhood school" by taking it over.  The key to success at charter schools is, of course, "choice."  When the plan is imposed on a neighborhood, their is no "choice" by the neighborhood constituents.  And they may resist the changes.  This happened in Denver when the KIPP program - which had operated successfully in Denver when kids "chose" to leave their neighborhood schools to attend - took over the Cole Middle School and imposed its "reforms" on a community that did not want it.  They resisted - and when KIPP managers realized they couldn't "show the kids the door" for not meeting expectations, they literally backed out.  The "experiment" failed.

The WSJ - and others - seem to believe the Michigan experiment will be successful because the districts "will not be bound by labor agreements."  That is a rather narrow view of the problems in schools like Muskegon Heights and Highland Park.  This position runs home to ideology and assumes that schools in economically disadvantaged areas are struggling because union teachers who can't be fired are the cause of failing schools.  Certainly, there is argument that a lot of bad teachers - or formerly good teachers who have given up - are not helping the problems in these schools.  And the WSJ validly argues that they districts can save money by going with the charters.  However, school turnaround requires long term commitment, and history shows that places that give up workplace rules in order to reform eventually begin to ask for those rules back.  Or the teachers will leave for "better" working conditions.  What may happen - like the common pattern in Teach for America (TFA) - is that teachers will "put their time in" for a couple years, and then make a jump to to place where they can have a career and earn a living.

Thus, I too have high hopes for Michigan.  But workplace rules aren't the cause of problems in poor schools, and getting rid of them won't ease the ills that cause most of the trouble in schools.  And, "school choice" is not necessarily the answer when the kids and parents don't actually "choose."

More News on High Paying Skilled Labor - No Bachelor Degree Required

Despite stubborn unemployment numbers in the United States, and despite continued groaning about the rising and unmanageable cost of college tuition, plenty of non-bachelor degree jobs are still going unfilled, as manufacturers still can't find enough skilled labor.  As millions of kids rush off - often naively and mindlessly - to four-year colleges, plenty of jobs remain open for machinists and welders and electricians.  While Americans tend to ignorantly believe we don't have factories in this country and all the manufacturers have moved offshore, jobs at factories paying as much as $100,000/year remain unfilled.  When will we learn and be more honest with our young people?

Thoughts on School Choice

School choice has been one a divisive issue in education reform for decades now.  Vouchers, it has been argued, would allow poor children in failing schools to take "their tax money" and spend it on a better school of their own choice.  Competition for this funding would logically force all schools to improve, or so the story goes.  The pro-con points - separation of church/state, local control, leaving some children behind, freedom - are well known.  Recently Michael Petrilli of the Fordham Institute has weighed in on the school choice issue from a new angle - the suburbs where schools are reasonably well performing.

Michael Petrilli believes that even parents in stable and even affluent districts with "good schools" should be able to "choose" which school would be best for their kids.  Petrilli argues from the perspective of a "Koala Dad" - as opposed to a "Tiger Mom" - and believes that escaping failing schools shouldn't be the only reason parents deserve the freedom to choose their children's schools.  Why should the be restricted by neighborhood?  What if their district school is athletically focused or better in math and science, but a school down the road has a better theater department which suits their child who has more literary interests?

I don’t entirely disagree - logically people should be able to choose their child's school.  And, that's true even if choice critics claim suburban parents "choose" their school by "choosing" their neighborhood.  That is certainly true where I live - realtors comment on clients who simply map out our district and tell the agent to find a home within that boundary.  And, Petrilli is probably aware that this issue is currently being played out in the suburbs of Colorado in the Douglas County School District.  While that plan has been frozen by a judge - because Colorado's state constitution specifically prohibits spending public money for religious institutions - this court case has stirred the debate precisely because the area is one of the richest in the nation with some of the state's best schools.  It has seemed to be a more political/ideological move by the school board as opposed to community driven in search of improving schools.

I believe kids should be able to choose their school – in fact, I remember watching Waiting for Superman and thinking, "Just let them go."  Period.  If more kids want to attend a charter school, the district should simply expand the school.  Shift the funds.  There should be no lotteries and no waiting lists for schools.  Kids and parents should have such freedom of choice - which is why I like that Colorado has open enrollment statewide. Colorado has open enrollment and a thriving charter system.  However, when you expand to private schools you must acknowledge the reservations. I don’t have a big problem with the religious angle – but you can’t endorse vouchers for private schools that don’t have to meet basic public education laws. As long as the school allows regulation and total transparency, and as long as it can’t refuse to provide services to all students, his argument is valid. But if the school refuses state assessments and refuses to provide special education services and refuses to provide transparency and regulation that district schools do, then I fundamentally oppose the use of public funds. I hope Michael does, too. And, Michael, should have mentioned that the private schools must be accountable in all the same ways.

And, as a side note, I challenge Petrilli's attempt to support his idea by piggybacking on Jay P Greene’s flawed and biased argument that even our best schools “trail the world.” Because they don’t. If you remove all schools that have poverty rates above 15-20%, then in TIMMS and PISA, the United States schools rank number one in the world. Michael needs to concede and acknowledge these realities. Otherwise the arguments are not credible to people who actually know the facts. And he is, subsequently, just misleading an uninformed US public.

That's part of a teacher's view on school choice.

Teaching Pedagogy & the Whatever Works Model

Recently, a former student asked for my thoughts on pedagogy - specifically what different approaches I might use.  Having been teaching for nearly two decades, I've seen various ideas come and go.  Thus, I'm of the "Whatever Works" philosophy, especially after years of teaching in a profession that is incredibly prone to fads and flavors-of-the-month.  I wouldn't rule out any approach as long as kids are engaged and learning is happening.  In my heart, I am a pretty traditional teacher, and I can lapse into lecture fairly easily.  And years ago, I would have dismissed ideas such as multi-genre writing as "foo foo" education.  Now, I am passionate about it - and I believe it produces some of the highest quality and relevant writing my students do all year.

These days I am willing to try any approach as long as it produces results.  At the core, classes needed to be well organized, challenging, and engaging.  They need to be child centered enough for interest, but also focused on the acquisition of knowledge and skills they students lack - even if the students don't know why they need it.  I'm more suspicious of learning technologies, but I have taught web design in class, and I think the model of the Khan Academy is exciting and revolutionary in terms of pedagogy.  There is no one truly effective school model, and any classroom, school, and district must incorporate and adapt to the culture of the community.

As noted, teaching fads come and go, and the idea of pedagogy can be complicated, inspiring passion and revulsion alike among educators.  But few would disagree with the argument that if it works, it's probably good practice.  And, that's a teacher's view of pedagogy.

Justin Wins the Next Food Network Star - 2012

As was obvious from almost the first episode of the Next Food Network Star this season, 28-year-old culinary rock star and "Rebel with a Culinary Cause" Justin Warner established himself as the Next Food Network Star.  I've argued from almost the first week that Justin was the only one who consistently proved he had Food Network Star abilities.  Justin Warner is an exciting and innovative chef who has already had an exceptional career, running his own very popular and eclectic restaurant - Do or Dine - in New York's Bed-Stuy neighborhood.  And, now, he's on the Food Network with a new show to be produced by his mentor Alton Brown.  How appropriate.  If there were ever a future Food Network Star who could take over for the brilliant and quirky Alton Brown, it's Justin Warner.

One comment I really enjoyed in this finale episode of the Next Food Network Star came from Bobby Flay who said, "I'd rather have someone green in front of the camera than green in front of the stove.  We are the Food Network, and I think sometimes we forget that."  Truer words could not have been spoken.  This show - and this network - has to be about culinary masters who can - in the words of Alton Brown - teach us something.  They need an engaging point of view that makes viewers not only want to watch, but also believe that they can in some small way do what the celebrity chefs can do.  Bobby Flay nailed it with this comment - and his team was the only one filled with excellent chefs who could regularly bring it to the table.  Of course, one of the biggest disappointments this season was executive chef Eric who went home far to early because he was - in Bobby's words - the best chef in the competition.  Sadly, Bob Tuschman conceded that he wanted to keep Eric but was swayed by Susie Fogel who, for some reason, seemed to support Giada in her belief that Ippy was a star.  He wasn't.

And speaking of not being a star - and not even being a skilled chef - the second best part of tonight's show was the early elimination of Marti.  However, the connection between Justin and Marti was quite touching.  It was almost a mother-son relationship, and it was very sweet.  Throughout the competition, Justin spoke quite emotionally of his father who has passed away.  However, there was no mention of a mother or siblings or really any family or community.  So, the team of Marti and Justin was sweet.  He pulled her through many parts of the competition - and I'm glad they made that clear again.  Clearly, Marti is not a chef, and certainly not a Food Network Star.  However, she apparently played an important role in the competition as a teammate for Justin.  And that was nice to see.  In the end, he seemed quite overwhelmed with the victory and attention.  Once the shock wears off, though, he should be great.

Ultimately, it was a no-brainer that Justin Warner was the Next Food Network Star.  However, the executives at the Food Network are crazy if they don't give Michelle Ragussis her own show.  Michelle's idea for "My New England" is a great idea for the Food Network.  Michelle can not only bring it in the kitchen, but is also entertaining on camera in a Guy-Emeril sort of way.  It would be quite entertaining for Michelle to visit and open up for us all the nuances of New England.  It's a great travel-food-culture sort of show, and the ideas are limitless.  Of course, the Food Network may screw this up, as they seem obsessed with the competition format now - Robert Irvine saving impossible restaurants, Bobby Flay helping restaurants open, Anne Burrell hosting competition for exec chefs.  It's all a bit much.  Robert Irvine's show is amazing and informative - the other two, not so much.  And, of course, they still have Guy and Diners, Drive-in, and Dives on constantly - when they aren't showing "Chopped."  So, let's open it up to some feature-style shows.  Michelle's My New England is a great start.  And they should seriously think about giving Jeff the Sandwich King more airtime, exploring sandwiches the way Guy does diners.

So, congrats to Justin Warner.  It looks like the viewers actually got it right.  Justin led voting in almost every week, so it only makes sense for him to succeed and be named The Next Food Network Star.