Public Policy Blogger

2012: Healthy seeds in fertile soil

2012-01-06T10:42:00.004-05:00

For this new year to be a prosperous one, we need an ample scattering of healthy seeds on fertile soil.

Seed defined. Grain for sowing; fertilized ripened ovule containing an embryo and capable of germination to produce progeny; a source of development or growth.

Healthy defined. Enjoying health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit; evincing health; conducive to health; prosperous, flourishing, considerable.

Soil defined. Firm land; a medium in which something takes hold and develops.

Fertile defined. Capable of sustaining abundant growth, abundant development, abundant possibilities.

The healthy seeds that course through our veins in this country. Inherent. Instinctive. Inculcated. Create something innovative, meaningful, lasting. Provide for our families. Educate everyone's children. Believe all should be safe, healthy, well-nourished, well-housed, well-clothed. Jump in and help those in crisis or in need. Compete with a cooperative spirit. Plan with a pragmatic eye. Seek and build community. Prefer order to disorder. Protect individual property while conserving and preserving natural resources. Protect individual pursuit while strengthening the common good. Protect individual freedoms while sustaining public institutions.

The fertile soil we need for those seeds to grow abundantly. Minds open to others' ideas, opinions and experiences. Willingness to balance personal goals with communal goals. Flexibility to new paths, new paradigms, new purpose. Understanding of a world woven now into a fabric of economics, technology, culture, religion and communication. Embrace of a country always defined by dynamic change and progress, but also by our strong public institutions, our open democracy, our compassionate core.

The current political environment has been disappointing and unproductive because too many political candidates and sitting lawmakers are spreading unhealthy seeds on infertile soil. I for one will be listening carefully and will only support those who go against the current flow. Ones who choose the healthy seeds. Ones who plant them in fertile soil.

Fayette County Soil Conservation District/Chrysalides blog

In the meantime. A conversation about our economy.

2011-12-29T22:56:00.002-05:00

Holidays overtook life for awhile. Will be back in a few days. In the meantime, I'm thinking over and over about where we are at this unusual time. I will always be optimistic about our country and our world because I really can't fathom or stomach anything else. But things seem out of whack. Where individualism is way more important than the common good. Where our market economy is providing much less for the many and much more for the few.

I just talked to an employee in a local shipping store. A congenial, smart person who always provides good customer service. Out of curiosity, I asked if Corporation Y provides good benefits. He cocked his head and said, No, we don't have benefits; this is a franchise, not part of the namesake corporation. So, I asked him a few more questions. Turns out he works full time. Actually, more than that. At least 50 plus hours per week. Hourly pay. No overtime. No health care. No dental. No bonuses. He mentioned that he needs dental work. $800 worth. Will go ahead and schedule it. Put it on his credit card. Or eat less. Or put off paying his utility bill. He's reluctant to say anything. His boss would respond, I have ten more people who'll take this job... In the midst of all the holiday cheer, I wonder... What kind of country is this where this is now considered OK? What kind of employer? What kind of workplace? What kind of community?

Newt Gingrich's "big" idea about poverty

2011-12-07T14:21:00.007-05:00

Refreshing to read Kathleen Parker this morning as she eviscerates the "big" idea of ever-pompous Newt Gingrich to give poor kids the work ethic he believes they lack by firing their school custodians and pay the kids to---- clean the floors, desks, windows and cafeteria tables, scrub and sanitize bathroom sinks and toilets, sweep sidewalks, shovel snow, bag and dispose of trash and garbage, clear clogged pipes, etc. etc. This, mind you, while putting aside their real job of learning every day. To be custodians, they would need to come in early even though they stayed up late doing their homework the night before because they first had to take care of a younger sibling while their mom caught a few winks between her two jobs. And they would need to stay late after school although that's usually when they translate for their grandmother when she goes to the doctor or the grocery store, or move to a new apartment because the pipes broke and the landlord has gone missing. To add insult to injury, he apparently thinks these kids, unlike their more affluent peers, should clean their schools as their extra-curricular activity instead of participating in sports, student government, jazz band, art club or the chess team.

The underlying message is even more disturbing. He paints all families living in poverty as lazy and criminal. Never mind that jobs are scarce in the inner city and rural outreaches where most poverty is concentrated. That many are still learning English and trying to navigate obtuse paths into the American mainstream. That nutritional food needed for healthy brains and bodies is hard to come by in these communities. That those who have escaped through consistent education, a unique opportunity or sheer grit often leave and don't look back, thus leaving kids with few examples of a more abundant life.

(I suggest Mr. Gingrich take his idea face-to-face to the kids and families. Look them in the eye. Tell them other kids in wealthier schools won't have this "opportunity" to clean toilets and get paid for it. Just them. Tell them it will make them stronger. Better. Ask their parents why they're all deadbeats and criminals. Tell them you don't think they have the ability to inspire or support their children. But, you do. See what they say, Mr. Presidential Candidate. See what they say.)

Alas, Mr. Gingrich subscribes to the time-worn, simplistic belief of many conservatives, mainly Republican but not all, that those of lesser means got there because they don't work hard enough. No work ethic. No fire in the belly. Prone to laziness and crime. Living in the South for most of my life, where this belief, this Ayn Rand ideology reigns, I've heard it over and over again. And I see the results. Persistently low rankings in education, health, nutrition and income. Society persistently stratified. A big tent it is not. An understanding of the complexities and brutal truths of poverty it is not. A path to opportunity and prosperity for all it is not. As Ms. Parker writes,

Republicans have always been wedded to the idea that Americans, given opportunity, can pull themselves up by the bootstraps. In fact, most people subscribe to this very American narrative to varying degrees. But missing from the vision of the coldest eye is acknowledgment that sometimes people have no boots. (My emphasis.)

With a degree of charity not apparent in Gingrich’s remarks, one can hypothesize what he may have meant, such as perhaps one can imagine becoming only what one has seen. How does a child who has never witnessed a doctor or lawyer in his everyday world imagine himself as one? Alas, Gingrich didn’t start there.

I've seen poverty up close and personal through the children I've mentored and schools I've served. Kids living in poverty don't need to learn how to clean toilets. They need education, empowerment and empathy.

Education to level the playing field. Equivalent to any affluent school: Rich curriculum for building knowledge and enabling analytical and critical thinking; well-supported, well-educated teachers who are intuitive, innovative, dedicated; stable, consistent, dedicated administrators; safe, well-equipped buildings and classrooms; frequent, dynamic opportunities for team learning, hands-on learning, research, debate, leadership, community involvement. The horse is out of the barn with education "reform" built on standardized testing, school turnarounds and charter schools, and it's most acutely affecting schools in impoverished urban neighborhoods. Despite what reform proponents say, it's a very inefficient way to spend public dollars. It tends more to fracturing fragile neighborhoods than strengthening them. It tends to place priority in the wrong places--- test scores as the primary measure for reward or punishment, disruption and choice as ends not means, and an influential private industry embedded in and profiting from the reform.

Too few see that in our market-based economy in which other sectors are declining, opportunities abound for business models that use the low-risk leverage of public dollars spent in every state, every county, every city to educate children. And if that education, on its current "reform" path, needs the capacity of the private sector to: create the software and textbooks for the standards, design, score and report the tests, train the teachers to prepare students to take the tests, provide managers to turn around "failing" schools that don't reach score benchmarks, create and manage charter schools... well, it's pretty clear where this is going. There's always been a proper and helpful role of the private sector in public education, but we're in whole new territory now.

Proponents of this reform like Mr. Gingrich (and our President, I might add) seem blind to its consequences to the low-income children whom they profess to care about. When we take teaching and learning, or in Mr. Gingrich's case a work ethic, to the lowest common denominator or most simplistic form, we'll never educate children to the level needed to survive, strive and thrive in our economy or society.

Empowerment to instill the language and currency of success in our competitive economy and society and provide paths to the opportunities that economy and society provide. Working with the awareness that "you don't know what you don't know." Adults in classrooms and leadership consistently modeling, teaching and inspiring children and youth to establish good habits in studying, communicating, planning and reaching goals. As the old saying goes, knowledge is power. Acknowledging that most families living in poverty are doing their best, but often are worn out from the daily hurdles to a stable, sufficient life. That they too need support, information, access and empowerment to better provide for their families and be primary players in preparing their children for the "real world." Together, schools, families and communities making sure that children in their care complete their education, make life plans and fulfill the quintessential goal to live a better life than their parents, taking the family one more rung up the ladder and empowering their own children to do the same.

Elites and ideologues like Mr. Gingrich look at those who struggle and assume laziness or ineptitude, and thus his brilliant idea to "let them clean toilets." I must point out, too, that I've seen some liberals, a different kind of elite, who underestimate the intelligence and abilities of those living in poverty. As I told my successor on the school board, while sharing my experience serving the low-income neighborhoods in our district, the children and youth in these communities don't need your pity, they need empowerment.

Empathy to shore up the honor and self-respect that all human beings need to survive, strive and thrive. Respecting their humanity, taking the time to understand their circumstances, trying to live a day in their shoes. Getting to know the young people who've come into our lives over the years, my husband and I learned a lot about ourselves, how we could make assumptions, underestimate, misunderstand and be fearful or uncomfortable. It takes time. It requires respect. Showing up. Being there. For the long haul. I've grown tired of current conservatives, and I have plenty of friends and family who are in that camp, who believe in the "pull up your bootstraps and get a job." Like it's that simple for those who don't speak English very well, don't have enough food to eat, don't know how they'll cobble together scholarships they need to stay in college or don't know what it's like to have a stable, permanent home.

Today's conservatives say if you talk about our collective responsibilities to one other, then you must be a socialist. Hogwash. Human beings exist for each other. We live in cooperation to meet our intellectual, physical and emotional needs. We live in collaboration to solve shared problems and forge new paths. This kind of synergy, mutual dependency crosses cultural backgrounds, socio-economic status and level of education.

I purposefully used the word empathy instead of sympathy, a more remote behavior, because we share more than we often acknowledge. And empathy leads to compassion. The ability to see someone else's suffering or difficulty, and jumping in to see how you can help ease the suffering or overcome the difficulty. That's where the education and empowerment come in, and a lot of other kinds of support, too. We are a compassionate people. I don't buy it that there is an Ayn Rand bursting to get out in each of us. We may be independent and feisty, but when confronted with a big challenge, we are much more inclined to assist one other than tell each other to pound sand. We do it because we care about each other, but we also know that the success of others impacts our own. Or at least that's been the dynamic. Until now. The real and scary danger with the rhetoric coming out of current conservatives, so glaringly exposed in Mr. Gingrich's "big" idea, is to tell newcomers and the younger generation that here in America, you're on your own, baby. Just take care of yourself. Don't count on the government. It's bad. Stratified society is OK. Fractured communities are OK. Different rules depending on where you live, what you make, who your parents are. All OK.

But, don't worry. If you struggle, there will always be plenty of toilets to clean.

Surely, most will see this as unacceptable. And un-American. Surely. I hope.

Choosing to be hopeful at Thanksgiving

2011-11-23T09:38:00.002-05:00

It's not hard to think of these times as feeling different, on the edge of something unfamiliar. Discomforting. Scary. Yet there are embers of HOPE. It's like a drive in the country when you encounter a breathtaking view of golden mountains and pistachio-green fields. Then all of a sudden the car roller coasters over a hill and your stomach bulges into your throat. Unconsciously making you aware that to see a thing of beauty often requires a bumpy ride.

People are using words like transformative. Transition. New normal. I'm using them, too. Born in the peak year of the baby boom, I'm headed for a mid-50 threshold. If all holds together, midway plus through my life on this earth. Moving to a new city at this point, leaving behind a life in another place built over two decades. Children grown. One in college, one on her own. Still connected, yet building a new life for themselves. In these times. Showing similarities to me, but revealing personalities and perspectives that are different. New. Fresh.

Funny, many new friends I've made in this new life, new place, by chance and choice, are in their 20's like my daughters. Maybe a way to hold on to that last chapter of raising children, to maintain a sort of bridge to them. Or a way to imagine where the world is going in these times. I've always been an observer, trying to figure things out by watching what people say, think, believe. And what they do. Talking to most everyone I meet. Gleaning. Growing. Or maybe it's a way to make me feel young again, or at least younger. To be around their evolving ideas, greater energy, naive passion. Likely all of those things.

It's that frame of mind that's influencing my thoughts now as I read books, articles, essays. I'm hungry for information, insight. Both sides. All sides. Much written word. Articles, essays, books. Much spoken word from news reports, radio shows, music, even the sounds of the street, the woods, the water. Passing conversations. Images troubling, inspiring, broken, beautiful.

I remain hopeful through it all and will get to that. But first, there are things that frustrate and anger me right now.

The feckless behavior of Congress. The disconcerting leadership of our President. The refusal of too many Americans to face reality. Our elected leaders making excuses, pointing fingers, avoiding the hard work of governing. Ignoring the necessity, the practicality of collaboration and compromise. The shallow, narrow dependency on purity tests from the right and the left. The harmful habit of declaring we must prepare for the future, but refusing to change anything now.

The overemphasis on standardized testing and score-keeping in public education. Taking us inevitably to a dead end that will require turnabouts and detours by teachers and parents to empower and authentically educate their students, their children. And eventually universities, employers when they finally realize that standards and testing alone do not an educated, agile mind make.

The fact that our consuming lifestyle is not sustainable.

The incestuous relationship between money, power and influence in our politics and public policy making. Big banks clearly "too big to fail." The smartest less attracted to sectors that grow the economic pie, but to sectors where they divide the pie. The disturbing fact that those at the tip-top of the income scale see no ceiling to their prosperity, while everyone else sees no floor.

Sending young, brave men and women into a "war against terrorism" of indistinct boundaries and elusive enemies. Raising concerns about drone warfare, questions about the purpose of of the American military and the role of our diplomacy in a world of rapidly evolving players, movements, conflicts, events.

America's Real First Thanksgiving

Still. I see a bright, sharp light at the threshold. Where a critical mass of us, increasingly populated and led by the young, will haltingly open the door. Then wrestle with the troubling facts, the problems, the realities, and push those who represent us in the White House, Congress, statehouses, city and county councils, school boards to be honest, courageous, principled and SERVE THE COMMON GOOD. Most importantly, we will ask MORE of each other. Ask MORE of ourselves. We are a stubborn, but wily people. Fiercely independent, yet abundantly compassionate, instinctively communal. I don't know what the solutions will be, what will stay the same, what will change, how hard it will be or how long it will take, but I do believe the American experiment of bringing diverse people together to make one nation along a dynamic timeline is too compelling, too important to fade into grays and shadows. We are always evolving, always finding ways to succeed, to prosper.

In that light, as our very-American Thanksgiving approaches, when we are universally thankful for family, friends, home and community, I choose to be HOPEFUL.

Connect to Compete. Bridging the digital divide. It's about time.

2011-11-09T09:07:00.004-05:00

When I served on the school board in Central Florida a few years ago, I became keenly aware of the digital divide. The district I represented was very diverse. In income, race, ethnicity, culture. One low-income area in particular had a multitude of challenges. It, like in so many cities, was an island. No major grocery store, limited retail, inadequate parks, inadequate bus service. For the children, in addition to not having enough safe, green places to run and play, they usually did not have access to the internet in their homes, let alone digital, broadband access.

We may wince, but most of us now absorb the cost of internet and cable into our monthly budgets and would only stop service if our financial situation changed dramatically for the worse. But that monthly fee (not to mention the cost of equipment and hardware) is out of reach for low-income families, and probably many lower middle-income families, too. Their children may have access at school, although technology in schools is not what many of us have at home, but the rest of the time-- afternoons, evenings, weekends, and summers-- they have limited connection to the world of technology. Their local public library (if it's still open) is a bit of a substitute, but again it's limited and we all know the budget cuts libraries have experienced over recent years, especially during this "Great Recession."

It's also true that part of our employment problem, especially in the cities and rural areas where this digital divide exists, is linked to the many adults who lack the technological access, knowledge and ability to be qualified and ready for many of today's jobs. Tackling this cold reality is worth the investment and effort. Not only for the adults who will benefit short-term, but also their children, neighborhoods and communities, in the long term. Actually, it benefits the whole country and the greater economy to build bridges to these islands among us.

During my term, my husband and I mentored two young men (brothers) and a young woman who attended high school in two of these "island" neighborhoods. Neither family had internet or cable. In fact, the young woman's mother, who worked long hours as a practical nurse, had been through times before we met when she didn't even have enough money for electricity. One of the brothers came to our house to go on line to fill out his college applications. It was as though we were living in two different countries. An advanced one and a developing one. Right next to one another.

Now that we're in the Washington, D.C. area, a region where its leaders do put more focus on equity, I know there are still children who endure a similar island life. So, it was exciting to read of a new, albeit overdue, effort to bridge this divide on a national scale, and give technological life lines to these children and families. (Let's not forget the same digital divide in rural areas of the country, especially in the Deep South.) Part of this effort is called "Connect to Compete." Here's their website.

Connect to Compete is a national private and nonprofit sector partnership created to increase broadband adoption and digital literacy training in disadvantaged communities throughout the United States. The initiative is designed to help residents improve outcomes in education, health, and employment through broadband opportunities and technology solutions.

According to the Pew Research Center, one-third of all Americans — 100 million people – have not adopted broadband high-speed Internet at home. The Connect to Compete public-private partnership seeks to overcome the top obstacles to broadband adoption, including digital literacy, relevance and cost. The program delivers on the vision of the FCC National Broadband Plan to narrow the digital divide.

Here's the announcement on the FCC blog- FCC and Connect to Compete Tackle Broadband Adoption Challenge.

A long way to go, but a very good start. Thankfully, the New York Times and USA Today covered the announcement, but where's the rest of the media? And, maybe I missed it, but I haven't heard any elected leaders mention it. Too bad. It seems like a very big deal to me.

From the USA Today article-

"More and more jobs in our economy require basic digital literacy, There's a skills mismatch that we need to tackle," Genachowski says. "Even in this challenging economy, there are many jobs available that … are going unfilled because (applicants) require basic digital literacy."

From the New York Times article-

Only 68 percent of Americans with access to high-speed broadband Internet are using it, while in places like South Korea the rate is 90 percent.

More than 80 percent of Fortune 500 companies — including Wal-Mart and Target — require job applicants to apply online.

Various studies have shown that the major reasons people do not have broadband are: the cost of Internet services and the cost of computers; not knowing how to use a computer; and not understanding why the Internet is relevant.

As part of its attempt to break down these barriers, Mr. Genachowski said the F.C.C. wanted to start a pilot project that would lead to expanding the number of libraries that teach people how to use computers and apply for jobs online.

Last week, Mr. Genachowski outlined a plan to transform the $8 billion Universal Service Fund, most of which comes from consumers’ telephone bills nationwide, from subsidizing telephone service in underserved areas to expanding broadband access in those areas. He said Tuesday that some of the money from this fund could be used to help expand computer classes in libraries.

Moving the nation to full computer literacy, he said, will require multiple approaches. "There’s no single action that will solve all these problems," he said, "but there are a series of initiatives that will move the needle."

No child will be engaged and prepared to succeed, prosper and compete without full access to the technology that is shaping our fast-changing, complex world. No family or neighborhood is going to succeed, prosper and compete without full access to the technology that their surrounding communities enjoy and utilize. Local neighborhood leaders, local nonprofits, local advocacy organizations need to jump on this and work with (and put pressure on) politicians, technology companies, cable companies and internet providers to make it happen.

Inevitable consequences of too much standardization and testing in our public schools

2011-11-07T13:34:00.006-05:00

This is my story and I'm stickin' to it. Criticism of education reform shaped more and more by standardized test scores. Yes, a narrowed focus on standardization and testing is an easier path for politicians and pundit to measure the "return on investment" in our public classrooms. They can boil down "performance" of teachers and our kids into data points, spreadsheets and trend lines. Yes, it's an easier path for writing curriculum, lesson plans and tests. They can more simply identify teachers who stick to the standards and students who do well on the tests; apply punishments and rewards accordingly. Yes, it's an easier path for the education industry to profit from selling textbooks, computer programs, database support, lesson plans, training materials, tests, and the services needed to score the tests and report the results. Business plans are much simpler if the market is narrowly defined. Investment is lower risk and profits more predictable if federal and state governments require local school districts to use the bulk of public funding to teach standards and administer standardized tests. And despite what these reformers say, their agenda is still based on the factory model, grows the bureaucracy and deepens the top-down mentality of "I know best."

The reformers' usual response to critics like me--- "you just don't care as much about kids as we do," "you're protecting the interests of adults, i.e. teachers," "you believe there should be no standards and no testing"---I say, wrong on all counts. And STOP with the divisive rhetoric. It only hurts what we need to accomplish for our kids. We all want them to succeed, to be happy, to be able to contribute to society, live a full life and provide for their own families in the future.

My criticism comes from being a mother, a parent volunteer in our public schools, a school board member and a children's advocate. I believe there should be BASIC standards and BASELINE testing. I acknowledge that recent reforms have led to better data systems and given teachers, administrators and policymakers better ways to identify achievement gaps between demographic groups and specific learning delays or deficits in individual children. Those are important accomplishments. You would find very few parents, teachers or administrators who would disagree.

However, because this agenda based on standards and testing is so neat and tidy, and now so embedded in public policy and political talking points, data has inevitably become the be-all and end-all. But anyone who is a parent knows that children are not data points. And, as I have written on a number of occasions, many of the most outspoken advocates for this "data-driven" approach send their own children to elite private schools, or public schools in upper-middle-class neighborhoods. The private schools typically advertise themselves as NOT being data-driven. Show off their cutting-edge performing arts centers, well-equipped science labs, exciting trips outside the classroom to study ecosystems, attend operas and participate in archaelogical digs. Promote how their students are introduced early to physics, other languages, the classics. Lots of time for debating, writing, speaking, team-building, individual exploration. And the public schools that serve the well-heeled, since their children come in strong and have ample support from home, they still are able to hang on to this kind of education, (although it's getting harder and harder as this data-based reform agenda gets more and more entrenched and state funding continues to decline and is skewed more toward feeding the testing beast and less toward full, comprehensive, rich learning.)

And so I ask again, if these reformers don't choose a data-driven education for their own children, why are they insisting on it for everyone else? When we see the undeniable ways our economy is evolving and our society is changing, is their agenda really preparing all of our kids for the future? Enriching how they learn every day? Inspiring them? Empowering them? Unearthing each child's innate intelligence, creativity, energy, ambition, intuition? Employing their unique skills, talents, interests? I fear it is not. Sure there will be teachers who will do a heck of a lot more than preparing kids to take tests because they know instinctively that children need it. But I think that many of our younger teachers who only know this standards-and-testing regime will lose the mentoring of veteran teachers as they retire or leave out of frustration and not be as equipped, inspired or supported to go beyond the basics. This is especially true in our inner-city schools where children tend to be taught by the least experienced teachers and deal with near-constant turbulence from frequent school leadership changes, top-down, outside oversight and neighborhood poverty. (It's important we keep a close eye on recent trends of growing poverty in suburbs, exurbs and rural counties.)

I've sat back in the past few weeks. Watched, listened, thought deeply. We live in such a cacophony. And a fast pace that prevents us from wondering, are we on the right track? Looking at the right problems? Asking the right questions? Lots of typical business buzz has creeped into our dialogue about how we educate our kids. Boiled down: The worth and success of any "industry" (i.e. the public education system) that provides a "service" (i.e. education) should be measured by how how well it "performs." Have to look at the "numbers, "the data." In this case, to make it simple to report and easy to digest, it's simply standardized test scores. They give lip service to a "full education," but do little in terms of funding or policy to incentivize or reward it.

How long will it take before parents, employers...policymakers...see the damage to our children, to our future, that will come from turning such a human-driven enterprise like education into a data-driven enterprise? Something has to give and it won't be the data. The data won't care. And if humans outside the classroom are benefiting politically or financially from the data, they won't care either. Until of course the "ouput" (i.e. students) becomes less and less capable of thinking critically and solving problems from an over-focus on standardized testing. But how long will that take?

I think we're close to that point now. I've happened to read and listen a lot lately about the lives and work of various scientists, artists, designers, writers, scientists. The ones who work long hours, often by themselves, sometimes in close, dedicated teams. Scientists patiently doing years-long experiments and studies to develop a vaccine, a treatment for a deadly disease, or an innovative way to protect soldiers in battle, or efficient methods for repairing our decaying infrastructure, or new crops that need less pesticides and fertilizers. A composer working long hours on a new play, or a band collaborating on a new set of songs with instrumentation that seems new and fresh. A team of architects and engineers working long hours to design and build an efficient, affordable solar home. Another team of industrial designers and engineers looking for ways to make televisions, cars, refrigerators more efficient but beautiful. A writer who spends long hours in libraries, doing interviews, going through boxes of archives to tell a story from history that we never knew. The list goes on and on.

I am confident that the skills, the abilities, the capacity for learning, the work ethic, the ability to collaborate, the hunger to search...within so many dedicated, creative people has little to do with how any of them did on standardized tests. I would bet big money that their various test scores are all over the map. And if asked they would tell you it was their parents, a sister or brother, a grandparent, an uncle or aunt, a teacher, very, very often a teacher, a friend, a mentor, a famous, far-away inspiration... an experience, a class, a book, a song, an idea, a struggle, a loss, a triumph, an opportunity... a passion, a desire, a dream, a goal...that pushed them to become driven, passionate, successful. We cannot lose this capacity for ideas, work, passion in this country. It's what has made us strong. And defined us.

But the public policies redefining and "reforming" our public education system are moving us, our children, away from this capacity. And the momentum, the money, the politics pushing this agenda are now in cahoots with one another, and very much in control. We'd better wake up before it's too late. It's just plain wrong that a tiny fraction of (mainly privileged) children are being educated in a holistic, dynamic, rich way (10% at most) while the public school teachers who educate the vast majority (in most traditional and charter schools) are being pressured more and more to stay within standards and prepare their students to take standardized tests. I sum up with this warning--

Seth's blog-

As we get ready for the 93rd year of universal public education, here’s the question every parent and taxpayer needs to wrestle with: Are we going to applaud, push or even permit our schools (including most of the private ones) to continue the safe but ultimately doomed strategy of churning out predictable, testable and mediocre factory-workers?

As long as we embrace (or even accept) standardized testing, fear of science, little attempt at teaching leadership and most of all, the bureaucratic imperative to turn education into a factory itself, we’re in big trouble.

The post-industrial revolution is here. Do you care enough to teach your kids to take advantage of it?

And this from Joe Bower's blog, What has finland *not* done?

I hear a lot of people ask "What has Finland done to improve their education system", but it might be equally as important to ask, "What has Finland not done to their education system". While most Anglo-American cultures have spent their limited time, effort and resources on content-bloated, standardized, prefabricated, top-down mandated curriculums with test-based accountability and market-based competition, Finland has focused on broad & creative learning, personalization, professional responsibility, collaboration and trust.

Questions for Presidential candidates. What you owe the next generation.

2011-11-01T15:03:00.010-04:00

~~Instead of focusing on this relatively small issue of a questionable sexual harassment case involving Herman Cain~~, 11/08/11- In addition to investigating accusations of sexual harassment against Herman Cain, I have a few questions that I wish journalists would ask him and other presidential candidates, including President Obama--

Since he's the current Republican leader... to Mr. Cain--

Your "9-9-9" plan- Why do you respond to regressive aspects of this plan by saying people can just buy "used items" since they would exempt from your 9% sales tax? Would they buy
"used" food, "used" pharmaceuticals? If not, would those items be exempt? Then how would that impact your economic projections? Should lower and middle income Americans depend on used clothing and furniture to clothe their children and furnish their homes? Used bed linens, pots and pans, dishes, toys, home appliances? I'm all for conservation and shifting from our throwaway mentality, but I don't think that's your goal. You've portrayed it in economic terms only. So, wouldn't this new tax burden discourage consumer spending on new items and slow the economic recovery?

You say you'll implement 9-9-9 in the first year as president. Easy as that. Will you be honest with Americans who always seem ready to fall for the flashy sales pitch and tell them nothing of that scale is easy? Your talent lies in motivating people with big goals and catchy phrases. What is your capacity to roll up your sleeves, negotiate effectively with Congress, "motivate" them to reach practical solutions, get into the complexities of policy-making, be an effective administrator of a vast, complex and dispersed federal government? We did not ask enough penetrating questions of then-Senator Barack Obama. We were captivated by his soaring rhetoric, enchanting life story and unprecedented campaign. This job is not for those who distill things into simple little packages or soundbites. We hopefully are not so naive to believe otherwise.

Mr. Cain, you recently said your foreign policy would provide more clarity (than I presume President Obama's). That you wouldn't put "boots on the ground" in simmering situations like Syria, but may offer help in other ways. If that's the case, it sounds like President Obama's approach to the conflict in Libya. Is that what you mean? If not, could you provide more clarity for the word "clarity?"

To the Republican candidates who fall into the rhetoric of removing so-called "illegals" who "take the jobs of hard-working Americans"---(At least Governor Perry is not backing off from his support for state-funded college education for children born in Texas to undocumented parents; reveals a practical side.)

Do you know who picks the vegetables and fruits you buy at the grocery store? Do you know who butchers and packages the meat you eat? The restaurants you frequent, do you know if they employ undocumented workers? Where they acquire the food they serve? Do their suppliers and processors employ undocumented workers? Have you had your roof repaired? Your trees trimmed? New sod laid? Installed a new heat pump, new plumbing, the ubiquitous granite countertops in your kitchen? Are you absolutely sure you have never, ever employed or benefited from the work of the maligned "illegals?" Would you agree that vegetables, fruits and meats in our grocery stores would be more costly if growers and processors were paying their workers more than what they pay these shadow workers? That many services and repairs would cost more? Home and road construction is known to employ transient day workers, many whom are likely undocumented. Are you frank with Americans that the costs of many things will go up if you simply "build the fence?"

Immigrants, unarguably the lifeblood of America from day one, are not the problem. Nature abhors a vacuum. Most of those who come here secretly and illegally fill jobs Americans don't or won't do. Many politicians paint them as criminals, but they aren't the problem. They wouldn't be coming here if the job demands weren't here. Or if their native countries provided the jobs they seek and ensured freedoms and securities our country does. If you want to stop illegal immigration but you don't want costs of domestic food, home repairs, construction, etc. to go up dramatically, then what policies would you support that (1) supply the number of short-term workers needed to do jobs Americans won't or don't do, (2) clear paths to citizenship for the undocumented who are law-abiding, tax-paying workers, and (3) identification practices to keep employers honest about who they hire and how the compensate them?

For President Obama, you have detained and deported more than 400,000 undocumented workers to apparently appease conservatives in the hopes it would open the door for debate on comprehensive immigration reform. Will you admit on this issue and others where you swung far to the right that it didn't provide opportunity to debate and compromise, but instead your political opponents dug their heels in deeper? How do you propose shifting this pattern to one where you bring people to the table instead of allowing them to turn your own words against you? It takes two to tango, I know, but you are the president. Our top leader. Your recent executive orders I applaud because they tackle some immediate problems, like burdensome college loans and shrinking generic drug supply. But, how will you show us that you are a maturing politician who can solve problems, big and small, with Congress not despite them?

Our country's politics appear to be shifting conservative, but down deep we are a moderate, practical people. We do have expectations of our government. Defending our country from those who want to do it harm. Generous support for our wounded warriors. Safe and adequate roads, safe bridges and tunnels, ample public transit in the cities. Safe food supply. Libraries and community centers. Verdant places for rest, play and exploration. Protection of historic sites. Clean water, clean air. Help for those who need it, like the chronically poor, the sick, the disabled, the elderly, the homeless, the forgotten. Universal education for our children to prepare them for a complex world and competitive economy. Constant supply of power for our homes and businesses. A sensible, effective healthcare system that serves all Americans and leads to good health outcomes for all ages. This PBS Newhour report is worth a read and listen. We say we want low taxes, less government, but when you dig deep, the answers are much different. As a whole we care more about the common good and lean more to the practical than our politicians so vigorously claim.

Watch Land of the Free, Home of the Poor on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

To the other Republican front runner, Governor Romney-- you were clearly a moderate when you served as governor of Massachusetts. Don't fool us or yourself into thinking it will be easy to swing moderate if you win the presidency after espousing extremely conservative views on the campaign trail. Conservatives will not let you. Even President Obama, arguably a moderate/liberal, was greatly influenced by the powerful conservative factions in this country and on Capitol Hill. If you swing so far right, do you really think you can reach back to the middle to find practical solutions? Will you stick to your guns on tax reform and entitlement reform? You've been a bit more honest lately about healthcare reform you were instrumental in implementing in Massachusetts. Will you keep that up? Are you going to be just as honest to say you can't repeal the Affordable Health Care Act with the stroke of a pen, but instead will use your experience as governor to reform the reform, make it work, make health care affordable and accessible to all Americans?

President Obama, you said you would be the great mediator, the one who would change our politics. Some decisions gave me hope. Your Supreme Court appointments. Your handling of Libya. To a degree, your tackling of the enormous problems in our health care system. Your focus on infrastructure and a green economy. But, you've swung much farther right than many expected and now to regain support with the disenchanted liberal base you're swinging way back to the left. It's frankly making me dizzy, and I don't know where you stand on a lot of things. What are your core beliefs? What do you seek to accomplish? Where is the middle ground for you? Where will you not compromise? Where lies your greatest flexibility? You say that you want to tackle entitlement reform and tax reform after you are re-elected. What assurance can you give Americans that you will follow through? What are your overall goals for these reforms? Since you've had little success in collaborating with Congress, what would you do differently next time around?

I was deeply frustrated when President Obama turned his back on his own tax and fiscal reform commission who showed political courage (those members of Congress who sat on the commission and voted yes for its recommendations) in proposing some pretty hefty changes to entitlements and the tax code. It provoked productive debate with additional ideas and proposals to get our country on better fiscal footing, but the President and Congress lost the opportunity these efforts offered to do what many of us want them to do. Serve the common good and together find practical solutions to our short-term problems and long-term health.

So, President Obama and all candidates, what are your long-term plans for--- the stagnated job market, the anemic housing market? How will you distance yourself from the Wall Street folks who give so much campaign money to your campaigns? How will you make sure middle-income Americans regain their footing in our economy? Will you seriously address the causes for deepening poverty in our cities, suburbs and rural counties and growing income inequality between the top 20% and everyone else, instead of the same-old treating the symptoms?

What would be the foundation of your foreign policy? What is the new role of America in this fast-changing, intimately connected world? What kind of relationship will you seek with China? North Korea? India? Pakistan? Iran? The evolving Middle East? Europe? Russia? South America? Latin America? Our immediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico? Is it time for a new trajectory for relationships with countries of Africa? What is the new face of defense and intelligence in this age of cyber warfare, evolving and elusive terrorist networks, instability and conflict in pockets and swaths, growing economic and military strength of China? Where is the balance in keeping defense strong, the economy strong, safety nets strong, infrastructure and education strong?

What about the environment? Who among you will be honest about the human contributions to global warming and climate change? Why won't any of you use the word "conservation?" When will one of you be honest about how the American dream that led to suburban sprawl and inefficient use of our natural resources, making us the biggest per-person user of energy on the planet, maybe, just maybe needs to change? That it's not just a theoretical argument, but affects us physically, economically, socially and politically inside and outside our borders.

And education. My big beef. Why are you all so enamored with charter schools when 85% of children are in traditional public schools? Or standardized testing when common sense tells you too much focus on test scores denies children deep learning? Be honest and say that charter schools are a small, sometimes innovative, way to educate kids, but they are small scale, small bore. That focusing on test scores to grade children, teachers and schools will lead us away from building minds not toward it. President Obama has been the most disappointing to me on this issue. I expect it now from the Republicans. It's been drilled into them by conservative think tanks and political boot camps. But President Obama with his unusual upbringing, keen intelligence and abundant curiosity. He's been unfortunately captured by this narrow reform movement. I fear if we don't change course we'll rue the day that we've taken our public education system in this direction.

So, to wrap it up. I know I'm not alone in asking those seeking political office--- Be honest. Be open-minded. Look people in the eye, but don't forget the horizon. Stop thinking about the next political campaign or what you "owe" those who gave you donations. Tell them to not expect anything more than solid, honest, principled, courageous leadership. Work toward compromise and practical solutions. Stop delaying the inevitable. Reform entitlements and put them on a more sustainable path. Reform the tax code to be fair, simple and sufficient. Figure out this illegal immigration issue in humane and practical ways. Maintain foreign policy that engages with the world or we risk losing our place in it. Maintain strong, smart, strategic defense. Make our economy work for everyone. Make our healthcare system work for everyone. Talk about poverty and income inequality. They are real. They hurt everyone. Require and encourage our natural resources to be used wisely and efficiently. Don't prepare our kids just to be good test takers or pit teachers, schools against neighborhoods against one another in the name of education. Develop our children's minds, inspire their imagination, increase their compassion for others, empower them to be the leaders, thinkers, creators, hands-on doers of tomorrow.

Truly, the last is our most fundamental, most important task. How we raise and educate the next generation. If our leaders will tackle these many tough issues with honesty, open minds and an eye to the future the country our children inherit will be on stronger footing. And if our children are educated to THINK, not just take tests, they'll be better equipped to keep our country in good shape for their children. There's so much at stake. We can't afford to break the cycle of doing what's best for the next generation. It's our duty I believe as citizens of this country and human beings on this earth.

The world's children. Malaria vaccine a sign of hope. Questions for the future.

2011-10-19T11:49:00.001-04:00

Today, the New York Times and Washington Post reported success of an experimental vaccine for malaria. Every year, malaria sickens over 200 million people and kills about 780,000, mostly African children. Insecticide-coated bed nets and other remedies have helped, but this vaccine holds much promise for wider protection against the deadly disease.

From the NYT-

The clinical trial is scheduled to continue through 2014 and will include tests on more than 15,000 children, from infancy on up. Early results released at a Seattle malaria conference on Tuesday showed that three doses protected 47 percent of the 6,000 children ages 5 months to 17 months from severe malaria. (The age group was chosen because newborns have some protection from their mothers’ antibodies.)

“The results are encouraging, but we still have a way to go,” said Dr. Tsiri Agbenyega, who heads malaria research at a Ghanaian hospital that was one of the 11 research sites. He announced the results, which are being published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

While 47 percent protection is not very effective — most vaccines are not released until they do better than 90 percent — the chief executive of Glaxo, Andrew Witty, noted that even that much protection would save millions of lives over a decade.

The vaccine has been in development for over 25 years, starting out for the American military but now mainly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Known as RTS,S, it's manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.

Glaxo has already spent more than $300 million on RTS,S, which will probably be named Mosquirix if it is introduced commercially, and expects to spend up to $100 million more, Mr. Witty (Glaxo CEO) said. Then, if the vaccine is approved, the company will make it at cost plus 5 percent for poor countries, with the 5 percent profit plowed back into malaria research.

Asked whether the Gates Foundation would pay for a vaccine that is less than 50 percent effective, Dr. Regina Rabinovich, the foundation’s chief of infectious diseases, said: “Would I prefer to see 100 percent efficacy? Obviously. But I look forward to the 2014 results, and any decision we make will be data-driven.”

Way back in 1948, The World Health Organization stated that- "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." The efforts of many, including ones behind this new vaccine, have gone a long way to treat and cure diseases that affect or kill so many children in developing countries, in this case on the African continent. Over the years, millions of dollars and thousands of people have responded to heartbreaking emergencies and chronic conditions. Flew in food during times of famine, built clean-water wells, intervened in violent conflict, and assisted in establishing good government.

Still, the words of WHO ring true. Achievements like this vaccine are important, but it's not an end in itself. It's a step. A piece of the puzzle. Hopefully it will have exponential, sustainable impact. But to be truly healthy, children throughout their growing years need more than vaccines. They also need nutritious food, safe homes, stable communities, effective and accessible schools, and paths to adulthood that prepare them to make a living and provide for their families and communities. Much progress has been made, but from a distance it seems like we aren't where we could be, especially knowing how wealthy the world is, even during this recession. There are so many institutions involved. So many people.

Are they working closely enough together? Focused on cooperation, not competition? Is there too much redundancy? Too many layers and bureaucracy? Too many meetings, too many conferences, not enough coordinated, effective, on-the-ground action? Is technology being used to its potential for communicating needs AND solving problems? Are the nuances and machinations of politics holding back success? And if they are, what are the effective ways to combat them? Are local communities being mentored and educated to engage, take ownership, maintain efforts beyond the short term? Do observers in the developed world know and understand the complexities of issues in the developing world? Is the overall strategy moving swiftly away from dependency toward empowerment? Is the overall goal to sustain organizations OR sustain communities and the people, the children, who live in them?

I applaud successes like this vaccine and all efforts to improve the lives of children who live in deep poverty or areas of conflict. And it's easy for me to sit here and ask these questions. There are likely some reassuring answers. At least I hope so. I also hope organizations, especially some of the new, agile, lean ones offer ways for people like me who care about the world's children to get more involved. More than making a donation. Maybe asking these questions is another way to contribute. Provoke a new kind of dialogue. In this interconnected, interdependent, fast-changing world, it's time we all have skin in the game. Knowing that the destiny of the world's children affects everyone.

A footnote---I wish Bill and Melinda Gates would focus their abundant wealth and big hearts on efforts like this vaccine, and back off from involving themselves so much in our nation's public school system. While data-driven decisions are integral to developing effective vaccines, heavyweight obsession with data in the classroom can do more harm than good in the long run. Teaching is much, much more than test preparation. We can easily lose the forest for the trees. For it's the most human endeavor on the planet, whether between parent and child or teacher and student. It can't be measured exclusively in data points. And it weighs on me that the Gates could take their data-driven education ideas into developing countries if they decide to expand their influence into all the world's schools.

Understanding our fault lines

2011-10-12T23:37:00.009-04:00

Fault lines. In geology. Lines that trace fractures in the earth's crust. Planes of rock shift and quake against one another, along those lines.

Fault lines. In society. Lines that trace our planes of abrasion, misunderstanding, bias. It was the acclaimed journalist Robert C. Maynard who developed the concept that we shape our views around "fault lines" of race, class, gender, geography and generation. I learned about it through my daughter, a wide-open-mind journalism student at the University of Missouri. Maynard believed that journalists should acknowledge society's fault lines as they research issues and report the news. Bring honesty, clarity, depth to their work.

Good advice for all of us. To acknowledge that we should strive to accept, respect, understand the fault lines that divide us and sometimes unite us. And the ones in between that seem less clear or become intertwined. Together making issues, problems, opportunities complex. We can even add a few more fault lines such as sexual orientation or disability or even line of work or education. Dissecting these push us to see how thought and emotion evolve in people's lives, the changing ways we see ourselves and each other. How they influence communities, society.

We talk a lot these days about appreciating diversity, but that's easy if it's just on the surface. Utilizing diversity is not so easy. With all of our challenges right now...

Educating our children to become resourceful, thinking adults. To become leaders of strong communities and teams that innovate, create, explore. Building a healthier, more equitable economy that strengthens the middle class. And leads many, many out of poverty. With sustainability. Making our healthcare system efficient and effective and fair. Developing immigration policies that are rational and humane. And celebrates the synergy that comes from new faces, new minds, new steps toward new beginnings...

Our politicians are taking the easy route. Speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Saying that they embrace diversity and society's complexities. But then exploiting and distorting the fault lines within that diversity. Making our society weaker, not stronger. Stagnant, not moving.

It's not a matter of erasing fault lines to get to solutions. Or ignoring them. Certainly not deepening them. It's better, healthy to acknowledge them. Full on. And let them inform our views. Even become incorporated. The old adage, walking a mile in someone else's shoes. Trying hard to understand a perspective, a choice that's different than your own. Maybe pushing you to change an opinion, an action. And vice versa. Arguing. Debating. Finding common ground, but at the same time employing our differences. Fault lines yes make this coming to a decision, making public policy, building community difficult, but they hold a deep well of energy. And ideas. So to move forward. Forward. There are threads that unite. Common bonds and common goals. But our differences, our diversity, even our fault lines will weave a stronger, thicker, more colorful cloth. Of human beings trying to figure out this whole, messy, complicated idea of life. Building a society. Together. Not apart.

If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. ~John F. Kennedy

We are a nation of communities... a brilliant diversity spread like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky. ~ George H.W. Bush

Our cultural strength has always been derived from our diversity of understanding and experience. ~ Yo-Yo Ma

Diversity: the art of thinking independently together. ~Malcolm Forbes

It is time for parents to teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength. ~ Maya Angelou

Read about Robert Maynard's daughter, Nancy, who died too young in 1998---here.

Some advice for young people in 140 characters

2011-10-05T01:36:00.028-04:00

Don't collect as much stuff as your parents did. Test: Is it useful? Essential? Beautiful? Well-made? Does it tell a story about your life?

Know where your food comes from. Learn how to cook five basic meals with fresh ingredients. Bake bread. Make jam. Bountiful life with less.

Think before you drive. Combine errands. Share trips. Bike. Walk. Recycle. Buy less packaging. Conservation happens when everyone chips in.

Drink water. Lots of it. Use moisturizer. Take vitamins. Talk to each other. Read books. Follow daily news. Know what's going on. And care.

Technology. Embrace it. And the pace of change. Connecting. Communicating. But don't diminish its role. Use it to energize a better world.

Breathe in cool autumn breezes. Feel the bite of icy winter winds. Watch the emerging greens of spring. Drift to the shady side in summer.

Relationships. Marriage. Start blissfully. We evolve. Circumstances change. Go into it with joy, but also open minds, eyes, hearts. To last.

Eat, sleep, work. Daily routines. Lots of life is showing up. But don't forget the who, what, where, when, why. The purpose. The passion.

Integrity. Look everyone in the eye. Say what you mean. Do what you say. Come early. Stay late. Follow through. Step up when others won't.

But time away is important. Reflect. Renew. Remember what life is all about. Find your center. Dreams to fulfill. Being with those you love.

Actions speak louder than words. If your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails. You gotta break some eggs to make an omelette.

Save for a rainy day. Measure twice, cut once. Necessity, the mother of invention. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You reap what you sow.

A firm handshake, a genuine smile, holding the door for others, letting someone else go first. All are worth more than simple expressions.

Authenticity. A consequential word. It means you can be counted on. You're trustworthy. Honest. You stand up for what's right. You're real.

Swimming upstream is sometimes the only way to get where you want to go or need to go, but other times you have to go along with the flow.

There's an artist, thinker, innovator in everyone. Those parts of your mind let you challenge conventional wisdom and blaze your own trail.

When the shit (sorry) hits the fan, buck up, suck up, fess up. Especially when it's your fault. It's life. Humbles your ego. Strengthens your spine.

It's always good to apologize. To listen more than you speak. To say I love you. Often. To watch the sun rise. And set. Embracing every day.

Sometimes you must walk away from a love or a friend. Hurts just too big to endure. But try forgiveness. Even silently. Freedom is healing.

Don't believe in forgive and forget. Yes, forgive. But learn from all experiences. Good and bad. They help weave the fabric of your soul.

A time will come when you must stand your ground. Know the facts. Be ready to debate. But listen. Most issues aren't pure black and white.

Hold onto youth's optimism as cynicism creeps in. Know your core but accept change. OK to be a wise ass, but try to grow into a wise soul.

The world is big in size, but small in its humanity. Conflict and fear. Shared traits. So are cooperation and trust. Strive for the latter.

Hard physical work is what it sounds like. Hard. Grueling. But it shapes you. Strengthens you. Stretches your limits. Shows you can endure.

Don't just donate money. Volunteer. Assist and empower those who have less than you. Poverty can't be reduced if we pretend it isn't there.

Like it or not, we're a nation of laws. They affect much of society. Read the words in the Constitution. Know them. Think deeply about them.

Be informed. Vote. Every election. Sometimes it will be the lesser of two evils. But a few will be able to rock our world. For the better.

Accept that lots of things can't be explained or understood. People can just be weird. And the mysteries, contradictions abound. Let it go.

Don't underestimate your capacity to think new thoughts, learn new things, find new paths, see new ways, make new friends, touch new hearts.

Be gentle to yourself, your family, your friends. Life is delicious, but it's hard. We're complicated. A strong community will sustain you.

Define your dreams. Live your own life. Don't let others say you can't do it. It's never too far and never too late. Be useful to the world.

Many chances to get it right. To fail and try again. To win. To make a difference. Make your mark. So, show us up. Show us what you've got.

The data: Poverty, health, children and soldiers

2011-09-29T11:02:00.004-04:00

(Sources: Pew Hispanic Center, The Washington Post, National Poverty Center, Childstats. gov, Kaiser Family Foundation, American Dental Association, Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America)

Children living in poverty:

6.1 million Hispanic children
5 million black children
4.4 million non-Hispanic white children

15.5 million of America's 74.2 million children now live in poverty

35% of all Hispanic children
39% of all black children
12% of all non-Hispanic white children

22% of America's children now live in poverty

Poverty level = $22,113 household income for a family of four

9% of America's children now live in extreme poverty, defined as 50% of poverty level or $11,000 household income for a family of four

It is estimated that over 10% of America's children, 7.4 million, do not have access to private health insurance or public health plan coverage.

Dental care coverage in public health programs is inadequately funded, dentists are in short supply in urban and rural areas, and 1/3 of public water supplies are not flouridated. I could not find an accurate number, but thousands if not millions of America's children do not have access to oral health care.

"Food Deserts," areas with limited access to nutritious and affordable food, most acutely affect the health of children. Affordable, dependable transportation to and from full-service grocery stores is the biggest barrier to low-income families living in urban, suburban and rural areas. Single parents who are disproportionately low-income spend less time preparing nutritious meals because of the pressures of work schedules and longer travel times to grocery stores. It's hard to calculate, but the USDA estimates that as many as 6.5 million children live in "food deserts." Obesity, diabetes and other indicators of poor nutrition and health are common, even among children, in these underserved communities.

Our healthcare system is becoming more dysfunctional, not less. Many aren't sure if President Obama's Affordable Care Act will help or hurt. I hope it helps, but it's so confusing, I just don't know. I'm of mixed mind. But it's apparent that more people, more children, are slipping out of health security, overall costs and out-of-pocket expenses are rising exponentially, and our health outcomes are being outpaced by most other industrial countries. At the same time, among the more affluent, there is overuse of medication and unnecessary medical procedures. This drives up costs for everyone and skews where healthcare dollars go. We cannot have a prosperous future if this is not fixed.

Our troops coming home from a decade of war are preyed upon by charlatans, like too many of the for-profit colleges, pay-as-you-go car dealers, etc. Their unemployment rate is over 12%, higher than the national average of 9%. So many are dealing with physical and/or brain injuries. They are making tough transitions into civilian life or non-combat roles if they stay in the military and trying to strengthen their relationships and marriages. Way too many are slipping into poverty. I think we underestimate the impact on their children, both short-term and long-term. This, too, is unacceptable for those who have served their country with courage and great sacrifice.

Growing poverty, the existence of food deserts, a dysfunctional healthcare system, soldiers with uncertain futures. All symptoms of deep, systemic problems.

When it comes down to it our economy is not providing enough good-paying jobs for the overall population. There are growing swaths of the unemployed and underemployed in all regions, urban, suburban and rural. In all demographic groups and all socioeconomic levels. In a market economy, if there aren't enough customers with a paycheck, businesses like grocery stores and professionals like doctors and dentists will be few and far between. Steady decline in manufacturing, anemic public investment in infrastructure, veritable shutdown of the construction industry, shrinking of the service, hospitality and retail industries, dramatic shift away from the traditional 9-5 workplace. This means fewer jobs, strained communities, stressed parents and children put at risk.

Public schools (traditional and charter) are preparing children more to take standardized tests instead of fully preparing them for a fast-changing, global economy where resourcefulness, ingenuity and flexibility are required skills. Low-income parents who worry about their children's health and welfare are anxious and stressed. And so are their children. It affects their ability to learn, thrive and simply be happy and joyful.

But our politicians, our elected representatives, are arguing about minutia and stuck in their disparate ideologies instead of facing these social and economic realities, working together honestly and openly to serve the people, especially our children.

In the public sector, no public program, no charity, no "treating the symptoms" --based purely on heart and transformed into cumbersome bureaucracy---will completely address our core problems. No market economy---based purely on competition and freedom--will either. It will take both in dynamic balance with one another. Our elected leaders need to be held accountable by the American people to show more statesmanship----wisdom in the management of public affairs---and more elasticity in establishing public policy priorities to ensure a sustainable, results-oriented public sector. Our private sector needs to be held accountable by the American people for its responsibilities to the greater good. Not just by how many checks they write to charity, but by the quality and quantity of jobs they provide and how they treat their employees and their employees' families.

Both public and private sectors are too focused on the short term and give short shrift to the long term. Too focused on protecting their turf, whether it's public programs or market share. But our economic and societal problems cannot be fixed by this current leadership mindset. It's hurting our children most. And they are our future.

Our public and private leaders can no longer get away with this. But we've let them do it. So it is now up to us, citizens and constituents, employees and parents, to turn it around so that we and our children are served well by both.

Public Education in America: Looking into the crystal ball

2011-09-23T14:00:00.010-04:00

A wish we all have. To find a crystal ball. See if what we're doing now will pay off tomorrow. Where we go to college. Whom we marry. Where we buy a house. How we raise our kids. We think about it in the big picture, too. Our economy. Our politics. So it is with our public schools. They always seem like a playground for experimentation. Some proved to be bad ideas, like open-classroom school buildings. Most have been replaced. Or the brilliant idea when I was in high school. English and history taught as electives. Let the students choose what interests them. I'm still working to fill in the blanks from that scattershot experience. And the "new math" roller coaster. We all paid the price for that one. But, they were bumps in the road compared to what is playing out now.

I've been glimpsing a crystal ball. And what I see frightens me.

In a nutshell, it's the current experiment with our public schools: Standards, high-stakes testing, performance pay and charter schools. President Obama (and former President George W. Bush), the U.S. Department of Education, Congress, governors, state legislatures, conservative, free-market think tanks, "new-age," Democratic think tanks and major business organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are all convinced these four elements will pave the way to excellence. Don't get me wrong. We need basic standards. We need basic achievement data. We need to focus on the varying educational outcomes between children, especially those who live in poverty, many of whom are black, Hispanic and/or special-needs. But the remedies are so narrowly applied and sanctions so inflexible that the overall, long-term educational health of children, schools, communities and society is being overlooked and, in many respects, damaged.

Here is the reform agenda, in bold, and what I see unfolding---

Standards and testing. Accountability and data systems, curricula and classroom practices are increasingly being designed around implementing standards and raising test scores. A burgeoning private industry has grown up around it, and profiting handsomely. Traditional and charter schools are being defined by it. This, while private and parochial schools are not.

Critical thinking skills, creativity, teamwork, outside-the-classroom and hands-on learning, civics, the humanities and world languages will continue to diminish in our public classrooms. At the same time, that kind of rich teaching will continue to take place in private and parochial schools. (And to a limited degree in rebellious public classrooms and schools where whole-child learning is valued by teachers, principals and families.) Inevitably a narrow approach creates a tight, standardized box for teaching and learning- "What do I need to know to pass the test?" It's a short-sighted way to educate our children. And hard to turn around. Too much public money is being spent, too many public policies are being written and too many habits are being acquired.

Performance pay. Teachers (and administrators who manage them), especially younger ones who will have had no other experience outside a standards and testing environment, will focus increasingly on raising test scores because now their pay and advancement will depend on it. They will be coerced into staying inside that tight, standardized box. And discouraged from creating the dynamic, enriching, empowering world of learning that our children need. The kind that builds multiple skills, instills deep knowledge, inspires innovative ideas and creates strong community.

Charter schools. Started out as an innovative idea. Satellite schools, freed from rigid rules and regulations, designed and run by experienced educators to try out ideas and approaches that could be replicated in all schools. But as conservative, free-market politicians and think tanks picked them up as a cause célèbre, they changed from being collaborative to competitive. And because they are publicly funded, they fall under the same accountability system that traditional schools do. So now standards and testing dictate their design and place them in the same tight box as the traditional schools. (There are independent-minded, outside-the-narrow-box charter schools scattered here and there, but they are the exception not the rule.) Increasingly, for-profit management and hedge fund companies are involved in charter schools, casting a shadow of doubt on the schools' real purpose and furthering a "bottom-line performance" (i.e. test scores) paradigm. And as many in this new crop of charter schools advertise themselves to parents in struggling, urban neighborhoods, they've inevitably become an avenue to separate "desirable" children from "undesirable" ones. In some cities, most notably New York City, they have divided parents and children by encouraging them to compete with one another instead of uniting them to educate and nurture all children. We are seeing the decline of two of America's greatest strengths: Children sitting side by side growing and learning together. And our public school system as the incubator for the next generation of inventors, innovators, dreamers, doers, thinkers and leaders.

Now we hear that President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will use unprecedented executive power to offer states waivers to the costly, onerous and unreasonable No Child Left Behind (NCLB) laws. But there's a catch. In return, states will be required to double down on implementing the President's reform agenda. Although he portrays the waivers as much-needed flexibility, it seems more like a stealth way to codify his Race to the Top competitive grant program, basically designed around standards, testing, performance pay and charter schools.

Congress in its paralysis is late in fixing NCLB. Its members are complaining about the waivers and the President's circumvention of the legislative process, but they seem incapable of doing anything about it. The President knows this. And he knows that states are desperate for waivers. It's not hard to predict that states will be cajoled into making a deal. He says he wants them to use what teachers and administrators have learned about achievement over the last decade since NCLB was passed. Move from test-preparation to real learning. But the parameters haven't changed. They've only been intensified.

Additional note: Vouchers. Controversial and repeatedly voted down by voters, they are on the rebound. A wide spectrum of supporters, from conservative, libertarian and civil rights circles. A new law in Indiana that's wide open will be an indicator of what may come in other states, depending on the politics and an evolving view of public education. Indiana parents can use it for any school, public, private or parochial. Eligibility is open to families with much higher incomes than has been customary. The limit on the number of available vouchers will be lifted in two years. What do I see in that crystal ball? Parents having more control and flexibility over where their children are educated. They can leave the standards and testing regimen in public schools, traditional or charter, and get a whole-child education. Or on the negative side, they can choose to separate their children from those they don't care for. This option will strengthen urban parochial schools that have seen parents choosing charter schools instead. BUT. There is not capacity, capability or even desire by the private and parochial network to educate ALL children. So, the social fabric of many communities, predictably struggling, urban ones, traditionally tied together through its schools, will weaken. Hardest to teach, hardest to reach left in traditional schools. Others flowing in and out of charter, private and parochial schools. Schools outside the public realm, with public dollars mixed in, picking and choosing, keeping or kicking out children who fit or don't fit, who obey or don't obey. And the concept of publicly-funded education made muddy through tax dollars returned to some parents, but provided to them by all.

An uncertain future at the very least. Yes, children will still be educated. One way or another. We still believe in universal access to a publicly funded education. But the what, how, why and where children learn will disperse into a more complicated, more costly Swiss-cheese fabric of schools. The traditional and charter school network within the public system will become more and more standardized, more and more test-focused. Then if the boundaries dissolve between public and private, as some would like, some very-American qualities of educating children will be lost. The long-standing dedication to teach most children, in all their wonderful diversity, together in a community-based network of public schools. The long-standing belief that public money should not be used to segregate children (however an unintented consequence it may be) or fund religious education.

To add another wrinkle, and I don't know if politicians and policymakers have thought about it, but many new immigrant families who come to the U.S. don't come from countries where universal education is a given. Many are accustomed to living with wide societal disparities. Unlike in the past, they come here now and are told it's okay to think only about your own child, compete for seats in publicly funded schools, measure the success of your child, teacher and school through standardized test scores. It's easy to see how standards, testing, performance pay and charter schools (and vouchers) will become accepted as the norm and families will begin to think that communities are not the lifeblood of our education system. And our democracy.

Now if public schools ruled heavily by standards and testing, weaker social fabric and a less democratic society are what reformers led by President Obama have in mind, then that's where we seem headed. Not hard to imagine a crystal ball foreseeing that. What's aggravating is that the reformers who control the purse strings, the bully pulpit and most campaign coffers ignore the oft-repeated lessons of top-ranked Finland, with its school system built on strong community, well-educated, well-supported, well-compensated teachers, little high-stakes testing, limited, flexible standards, more play, creative learning and teamwork. The reformers, too, dismiss the troubling fact that most send their own children to tony, progressive private schools, designed distantly from the standardized, test-driven public education they want to provide all other children.

I've written here before that I am an optimist by nature. But I've also written--a lot--that I believe we're on the wrong course with education reform. This crystal ball haunts me when I sleep and nudges me while I'm awake. I know I'm not alone. Educators, students, parents are concerned. And others. Young adults who experienced this testing regime and now feel cheated. Older citizens who wonder what happened to learning history, civics and literature. Business owners and managers who question why young employees don't communicate well and have trouble thinking on their own. But I just don't think those in power are listening or watching. And I'm more and more alarmed that our children, our society, our economy will soon pay the price, if they haven't already.

What's the solution to convince those politicians and policymakers to reset their course, or at least listen? Here's a start---

Back off from making standards and testing the end-all and be-all. To benefit all public schools, traditional and charter. Incentivize and reward whole-child teaching and learning. Let teachers lead. Unleash their knowledge, their skills, their wisdom. Respect them. Trust them. Don't be afraid of the beautiful, messy, complexities in our children. Let them make mistakes. Let them dive into themselves and find their inner abilities and interests. Let teachers and students together do what it takes to reach their collective potential.

It's time to weaken the power of the federal government in making education policy. Strengthen local governance and decision-making. At the same time, re-focus the Department of Education on making sure local injustices don't emerge from more local control. Be especially vigilant and responsive when segregation starts creeping back, intentionally or unintentionally. No competitive federal grants that intensify inequities and encourage political favoritism. Re-tool federal programs that address the causes and conditions of poverty across departments and jurisdictions to level the playing field for low-income children in fundamental, sustainable ways, especially in their very early years.

Scrutinize self-serving interests of the testing industry and narrow operational goals of for-profit charter school management companies. Hold them accountable for a change. Question the involvement of hedge fund companies in charter schools. Is it a financial game to them? Or a way to secure seats for their own children outside the traditional public school system? If some are genuine, are they and other charter school board members sufficiently focused on the FULL educational needs of children enrolled in their schools and in the whole community? How do we shift more toward collaboration instead of competition in educating ALL children? How do we stop using urban children as objects of risky experimentation? How do we strengthen fragile communities not further weaken them?

Are school boards being shored up by their constituents-teachers and families-to fight back against what has become an unhealthy focus on high-stakes testing and some say a "race to the bottom?" Are they being dissuaded from parochial, short-sighted policy making? Likewise, are governors and state legislatures being held accountable to think of the best interests of all children, and not just narrow constituencies? Will they preserve the democratic foundation of public education or let it be taken over by competition and "markets?" Is the National PTA willing to get in the fray? What about The League of Women Voters and other organizations that fight against injustice, have records of protecting the interests of children and strength of our democracy, long argued for sound, visionary public policies?

The most vocal opposition to this agenda is coming from teachers who see its daily effects, so it's being called a "union" fight by the media and politicians. Speaking for myself, I worry about the reform agenda's effects on the integrity of the teaching profession, but I mainly worry about its effects on children now and in the future. I worry about our sense of community and devotion to the common good. I worry about the increasing fragility of American society and how we should be preparing our children for a complex, interdependent world. Learning how to take a test will NOT suffice. But as long as the supporters and promoters of this agenda portray criticism as sour grapes from teachers' unions and not what is best for children and American society, then the debate will be controlled by them. Opposition needs to be diverse, deep and organized.

I will continue to speak out. Hopefully others will, too. And we need to band together. We will not agree on everything. That's OK. But we need to keep the words "children," "community" and "democracy" in every conversation we have and every argument we make. To remind each other, and everyone, what this is all about and what is at stake.

Acumen Fund et al: The young leading the way

2011-09-22T15:21:00.002-04:00

Too many people my age and up are still writing checks to organizations that tackle global poverty in the same way it's been done for decades. Nothing wrong with that really, but is it fundamentally and dramatically changing the dynamics, shifting the outcomes? I'm not so sure.

In this video, Sasha Dichter talks about his "generosity experiment" and the ideas behind the remarkable Acumen Fund. He describes how organizations like it are diving into the unexplored, innovation-rich middle between pure philanthropy (with minimal focus on "return on investment") and pure markets (maximal focus on profit; minimal focus on social impact). Of late, I've been looking for and donating to entrepreneurial organizations like Nothing but Nets and Charity:Water. I'm thrilled to find another one and will donate to it, too.

It's interesting. I see lots of fresh, young faces in the Acumen Fund "communities." If only I were twenty or thirty again, I would join the local one here in D.C. But alas. I did the next best thing. I shared the Acumen Fund link with my think-outside-the-box, living-in-New-York-City-while-I'm-young daughter. Told her about the NYC community. At the risk of being quaint, I'll wager it's just her cup o' tea.

So, at the minimum. Donate to the Acumen Fund, Nothing but Nets, Charity:Water and others like them. And if your children are all grown up and searching for a community that is making an impact on the world in new and powerful ways, pass this information along to them, too.

I sense a revolution. New energy. New hope. New world. And I don't think it's naive nor temporary. No, I think it's smart. Very smart. And hopefully forever.

Sasha Dichter: The Generosity Experiment from TED Blog on Vimeo.

Elizabeth Warren and Paul Ryan: Not-so-strange bedfellows

2011-09-14T09:43:00.003-04:00

Elizabeth Warren and Paul Ryan. Not in the same political party. Not in agreement on everything. But both believe in the American people who get up every day to provide for their families and communities. I tend toward the Democratic side, but I listen to and will support members of either party who seek practical solutions to our social and economic problems. And are courageous, tenacious, open-minded and principled. I like Elizabeth Warren. I am thrilled she has decided to run for the U.S. Senate. Undoubtedly, I would agree with her on many things. But, I also like Paul Ryan. And while I don't agree with him on as much, I do agree with him that our tax code must be fixed and entitlements must be "reformed." (Strengthen what works and fix what doesn't.) It's no secret that our problems are deep. Just look at the stubbornly high unemployment rate, the disturbing number of our fellow Americans who live in or have fallen into poverty, the broken housing market. This malaise is expected to last for a long time. We need public servants like Elizabeth Warren and Paul Ryan. They do their homework. They are skilled at explaining complex issues and eager to debate them. They show up early and they stay up late. If we had a critical mass of leaders like Elizabeth Warren and Paul Ryan to roll up their sleeves and work together to find the best solutions, we---and our children---would be much better off.

9/11: Reflections after ten years w/ update

2011-09-08T13:42:00.018-04:00

Those in New York City on September 11, 2001 often recall how the day started. A crisp fall-like morning under a brilliant blue sky. How it turned into a dark, jagged nightmare. In an instant. An unconscionable violation of the beautiful. The peaceful. The buzz of a normal day. Scars ten years later still rough and red. Eyes even when smiling set deeper, glancing off to some distant thought.

I wasn't there. I didn't know anyone personally affected. Nonetheless I felt traumatized. For months, years. Maybe I shouldn't have been. I can't imagine being there or losing someone precious in that fire and dust. But it was an earthquake of such magnitude that it sent shock waves to every corner. Creating fissures of fear and doubt. I felt off kilter. I saw a different look in our young daughters' eyes. And watched it color their world. Forever.

I remember thinking at the time we will go through the normal stages of grieving. The immediate reaction of coming together would subside as it does when someone suffers a tragic and unexpected loss. Neighbors, family, friends hold each other, then flock to your home and help you through it but then go back to their lives and you are left to sort out the pieces. At some point, you have to deal with it in your heart and reality. On your own terms. The past decade, marked by painful war, economic malaise and angry politics, has been a long road. Denial. Anger. Bargaining. Certainly some are stuck in one stage or another.

I believe, though, our collective souls are in a sort of depression stage. All this bickering. And cynicism. But. But. I see a deep well of resiliency. A glimmer that we will emerge from this shadow through grit and grace. In survivors directly affected by 9/11. In myself, my children now grown. Resiliency, a skill needed in times grown hard, unpredictable. Necessary for reweaving the nation's fabric and taking us to the next stage. Acceptance. When it will come God only knows. Or something like that. My faith is topsy-turvy; God is more mystery than certainty to me now. Here's hoping it's soon. Nothing will ever be the same, but I do want to see that brilliant blue sky again.

Update 09/09 8:38 AM, approaching the hour of the 2001 attacks--I just heard on NPR more reflections on 9/11. A poignant one about much-loved Father Mychal Judge, who personified the selflessness of first responders and the anguish of loss. I then remembered. Again. That sky. It's a piercing and common thread. As Brian Gallagher, New York Observer, writes---

No one remembers now, but there had been hurricane talk then too. A storm called Erin had been making its way up the Eastern Seaboard, causing fussy weather for the Mid-Atlantic states, until an incoming Canadian air mass nudged her out over the North Atlantic.

National Weather Service meteorologist Gary Conte was working at the New York-area station that day. “I remember it being a very refreshing day,” he said, “with a nice, cool air mass coming in. And it was the first day that the air mass, this cool dry air mass, was moving southeast from Canada, so it felt even better…Without looking at the maps, I remember that much.”

It felt like the first day of fall, the kind of day for which the word “lovely” was made, the clear, autumnal sky at once flat and deep, stretched taut over the city.

At 7 am, the temperature was 67 degrees. At 8 am, it was 70. By 9 am, it had risen to 73. But by then, no one was thinking about the weather.

The visibility is listed at 10 miles, which means if you’d looked north, you could have seen the first plane skirting in low over the Hudson a little less than 30 seconds before it hit. But then who would think to look for that? Who could foresee such an intrusion, and on a day like that?

Much was made at the time of W.H. Auden’s poem “September 1, 1939,” but a reread shows it to contain very little analog, save the titular month. But one passage does pertain: “Into this neutral air/ Where blind skyscrapers use/ Their full height to proclaim/ The strength of Collective Man.”

The “neutral air” here gives pause, however. Such air can no longer be neutral, if you were here. Ever since, when we wake to a day like that, the crisp, clear sky is not without a hint of menace. The memory of that morning passes across the mind, and the idyll is twinged with anxiety.

And this from New York Magazine-- "Blue, what everyone would remember first"

The morning of September 11 was, as many would observe, strikingly clear, the sky so blue it made the subsequent events that much more jarring:

As heard on ABC the morning of September 11: “New York City, beautiful day here, 80 degrees …”

“A bright morning sun lit a cloudless blue sky” (1); “a beautiful blue-sky day”(2); “the kind of bright blue sky that people who love New York love best in New York”(3); “what airline pilots call ‘severe clear’: seemingly infinite visibility”(4); “a crystal blue bowl of morning sky”(5); “it was not just blue, it was a light, crystalline blue, cheerful and invigorating”(6); “a late-summer sky so astoundingly blue it made the whole Northeast sparkle”(7); “almost alarmingly blue”(8); “9/11 weather”(9).
1. Don Brown, America Is Under Attack, September 11, 2001: The Day the Towers Fell.
2. John Avlon, Giuliani speechwriter, “The Resilient City,” an essay in Kenneth T. Jackson and David Dunbar’s Empire City anthology.
3. New York Times.
4. David Remnick, The New Yorker.
5. The Hartford Courant.
6. George McKenna, The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism.
7. Robert Mann and Miryam Ehrlich Williamson, Forensic Detective: How I Cracked the World’s Toughest Cases.
8. Wendy Doremus, widow of photojournalist Bill Biggart, who was killed covering the attack, Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind the Breaking News of 9/11, by Cathy Trost and Alicia C. Shepard;
9. Ed Park, novelist-essayist, New York Times, 2008.

I suppose it is as life. Bright beauty, profound joy coexisting with the dark. The difficult. The painful. Coming to acceptance. Separating what makes us happy from what makes us weep. Somehow making peace with the contradiction. Then. Hope. Love. Trust again. Our human need for all those things will dictate the course, even if our politics stay calcified and our institutions wobble and weave. At some point we'll all want to live, simply live, live simply, under that brilliant blue sky again.

Be back soon

2011-09-04T14:41:00.003-04:00

We---miraculously---sold our house in Florida and I've been on a bit of a hiatus. A mind cleansing. Or maybe it's the soul. Returning soon to add my voice to the mix. And considering a different approach. Short and sweet. So, see you soon! Hope everyone has had a restful, fun, safe summer.

Save Our Schools March. Now what? (updates)

2011-08-03T14:53:00.034-04:00

Following last week's Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action, now what?

The bottom line. It's crystal clear that participants in last week's march are deeply concerned that high-stakes standardized testing is increasingly defining what, how, when, why and where we teach our children. And agree that it is NOT OK. So what do we do about it?

IMHO, we need a big tent of supporters and advocates. But, how do we build it?

Connect to those who are concerned about the excessive emphasis on high-stakes standardized testing as a measure of "performance" of students and teachers. Teachers, administrators, school board members, parents, neighbors, friends, community leaders. Research institutions and foundations. Advocates for children, justice, equity, the arts and humanities, literacy and world-language fluency, pre-school, after-school and enrichment, outdoor play....the list goes on and on. Those who understand the need for fully nurturing the next generation for a healthy society, vibrant democracy and strong economy. Look for opportunities to bring it up in casual conversation. At the dinner table. During a night out with friends. Or parties with neighbors. In PTA meetings. Over lunch at work. At the gym. The coffeehouse. In the elevator. On the street.

Connect to high-school students who have lived with this testing regimen since elementary school. Their voices are critical in putting a face on the problem. Empower them to use their voices to pressure the policymakers, the politicians and the pundits to support teaching and learning, not drilling and testing.

Connect to student groups, professors, researchers and administrators at colleges and universities. Tell them that if they want creative, resourceful, independent thinkers in their classrooms then they need to get on the bandwagon to push back against standardized testing as the primary way to measure "success" in our public elementary, middle and high schools.

Connect to the business community and chambers of commerce. Ask them: do they want dreamers and doers, thinkers and innovators, writers and scientists, designers and engineers, able leaders and agile teams? Then they must stop supporting this standardization and narrowing of the way our children are taught. They are wrong to think it will create the kind of dynamic workforce they need now or in the future.

Connect to high-profile individuals in the media, arts, entertainment and professional sports worlds. Encourage them to speak up like Matt Damon did at Saturday's march.

Connect to Save Our Schools participants and supporters on Facebook and Twitter. And other groups like Parents Across America. Teachers' unions are sort of on board, but coax them to stop leaving so much at the table when it comes to policies like test-based performance pay. Encourage the National PTA and National School Boards Association to join the cause and be more forceful in demanding local control and less focus on testing to serve the best interests of children.

Connect to public charter schools that provide whole-child education and ones that serve special-needs children. (Those built on the original idea of charters.) They are hurt by test-based "accountability" standards as much as traditional public schools are. (I hope I'm wrong, but for-profit charter school management companies are probably a lost cause. They are enthusiastic about testing because it allows them to operate exclusively around spreadsheets. The same goes for the many for-profit companies that feed the beast; those that create and score the tests, train the teachers to prepare students to take the tests, and provide management and other "educational services" when teachers, students and schools "fail" to "perform" on the tests. They shouldn't be dismissed, however. It is essential they be exposed when they focus mainly on profits or define children as mere data points.)

A long shot, but connect to Teach for America. Although the focus on standardized testing gives them a simple, economical way to train their short-term teachers, if they care about the long-term academic success of children as they say they do, they should be encouraged to join the cause.

Become more informed about the hazards of high-stakes standardized testing and the importance of using them in a balanced way. As a start, go to the FairTest website and sign up for their newsletter http://fairtest.org/ Read or subscribe to Valerie Strauss's blog at the Washington Post, The Answer Sheet. She is tireless in gathering facts and perspectives that question current education reform. A recent post by John Thompson is also worth a read. He mentions an overlooked report from Brookings. In a response he writes to a comment, we're seeing public education policy move decisively from the rational "data informed" to the irrational "data driven."

Here are a few more perspectives about the risks of placing too much emphasis on standardized testing-

John Merrow
Parenting
Alfie Kohn

Add to these is a recent debate between Diane Ravitch, education historian, and Wendy Kopp, founder and CEO of Teach for America. I have listened multiple times to both of these dedicated women. In the end, I find Diane's perspective crisp and well-rooted. It might have to do with her constant travel and many conversations over the past year or so with teachers in traditional public schools. Or her research and study that led her to shift gears from being supportive of current education reform to being one of its toughest critics. It's likely both.

And while I don't question Ms. Kopp's sincerity or political acumen, her constant use of reform buzzwords leaves me skeptical and unsure of tangible solutions. I believe strongly in accountability and proof of effectiveness for any system that employs public dollars, but I am more and more skeptical of reformers who seem more enamored with simplistic rhetoric than the messy realities of teaching our complex, diverse children. I do believe there is common ground and sensible compromise, but I increasingly sense the current "reform club" (I don't know what else to call it at this point) is now guilty of what they accuse the "system" of doing. Digging in to protect their turf and their pocketbooks.

My thoughts always come back to: When is this genuinely going to be about what's best for the everyday learning experience of our children? And. What do we envision our children to be in adulthood and how do we get there?

Excerpt:

Diane Ravitch: The Problem with Standardized Tests by FORAtv

Plus a new CNN video. Nancy Carlsson-Paige, scholar of early childhood educator faces off with Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education. Even he, one of the "fathers" of current education reform, admits there is too much testing in today's public schools.

And this good commentary about data-based decision-making from teacher, James Boutin, in his blog, An Urban Teacher's Education. He refers to a recent guest post by Columbia University professor of education and political science, Jeff Henig, on Rick Hess's blog. The last comments-

What if we didn't have a political system in love with high-stakes testing? What would a school that used data effectively in that environment look like? First and foremost, it would collaboratively create a clear mission statement appropriate for its student population. Second, it would decide on what indicators, when met, would authentically demonstrate progress toward that mission. Third, it would create a strategy for achieving those indicators. Lastly, and most importantly, it would constantly rethink the usefulness of its indicators and the data they create, its strategy for meeting those indicators, and, on occasion, the mission statement itself. Critical to this endeavor would be engaged professionals, parents, and community members. This is the kind of environment in which data-informed instruction could be incredibly useful.

Henig finishes his post:
"Both data and algorithms should be an important part of the process of making and implementing education policy, but they need to be employed as inputs into reasoned judgements that take other important factors into account. The last thing we need are accountability policies that undermine education as a profession or erode the elements of community and teamwork that mark and make good schools. But when law and policy outrun knowledge, the results are likely to be unanticipated, paradoxical, and occasionally perverse."
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Ditto.

There is a lot out there. Do your own search and find the many voices raising concerns. Share them with others. Spark debate. Seek allies.

We are in a struggle FOR OUR KIDS involving PUBLIC FUNDING, PUBLIC POLICY and POLITICS.

Let your school board or board of education members know it is okay to fight back against what may well be a "race to the bottom," not a "race to the top." Let them know you have their back.

Keep pressure on your state legislators, governors and members of Congress. AND OUR PRESIDENT. Remember, he sends his children to tony Sidwell Friends. I drove by it the other day. Unbelievable. Beautiful campus. Like an elite university. Here is their website- Why does he not advocate for the same kind of education for all children?

Tell him, tell all of our elected representatives, in no uncertain terms that we WANT and NEED:

Testing used mainly for diagnostic purposes, not high stakes. Testing in balance with rich, dynamic teaching. Robust local control. Equitable, adequate funding and resources. Effective strategies to combat poverty in the cities, suburbs and rural outreaches. Focus on growing jobs for parents and equitable, adequate access to good nutrition, high-quality health care, technology, books, decent housing, verdant parks and safe neighborhoods. Public schools built on community and democracy. Whole-child learning. The humanities and the sciences. Project-based, real-world, hands-on learning. Teamwork and interdisciplinary instruction. Well-educated, well-supported, well-respected, well-compensated teachers. Collaboration, not competition. For all children, not some. All schools, not some. All communities, not some.

Maintain the buzz. Turn up the volume. Find allies. And it's OK not to agree on everything. Link arms. Confront those who are either blindly convinced that education reform based on high-stakes standardized testing is the way to go or benefit from it financially (or socially). Challenge their assumptions. Ask them the hard questions. And don't stop. It may come to boycotting the tests until we attain a humane, sensible balance. I don't know. But I do know the forces pushing this education reform agenda are now deeply vested and have gone way out on a limb to defend themselves. And many are profiting handsomely from it. Don't forget it is our representatives in statehouses and Congress who are using our tax dollars to create what amounts to an "education-industrial complex" instead of maximizing public investments in the classroom and our children. I haven't seen the list yet, but undoubtedly many test-based reform organizations and companies are donating heavily to the political campaigns of the president and other elected officials. So the struggle won't be easy. But we must keep going.

For our kids. For our future.

They say, just run schools like businesses. Oh, really?

2011-07-11T12:01:00.006-04:00

I just read an insightful article in Stateline Weekly this morning. While teachers and parents grow increasingly concerned about falling revenues for public schools, many legislatures and governors, of both political stripes, are seizing the moment to shift toward business-inspired, performance-based models and "outsourcing" the traditional classroom to privately managed, publicly funded charter schools and on-line instruction. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and state chambers are advocating for this shift and getting their talking points from education-reform theorists, or ideologues depending on your perspective, like Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute.

The theory goes that schools will be better if they are run like businesses. First off, in areas of public education such as school management, organizational structure, finance, construction, maintenance, etc. (non-classroom functions) good business practices have undeniably benefited the whole enterprise. They improve efficiency to maximize investment in the classroom. But, the business model is now directly entering the classroom.

One- This new breed of run-schools-like-businesses believes that the only way to improve instruction is to reward high-performing teachers and cull out the low-performing ones. In business, performance is measured in many ways, both tangible and intangible. And no business defines it in the same way. However, performance-based measurement of teaching is being simplified to focus primarily on math and reading test-score data and high-school graduation rates. Since the business voices are typically not educators, they look to such data-based tangibles because they're the easiest to understand and put into spreadsheets and talking points. The intangibles, not so much. So while they're given lip service, they're mainly avoided. That means fundamental elements in a comprehensive, rich education, i.e. the arts and humanities (including geography and history), science and physics, civics, world languages, hands-on, project, multi-disciplinary and outside-the-classroom learning are diminishing in value and priority in our public classrooms, both in traditional public schools and public charter schools. It also means that the tangibles are increasingly driving teacher education and professional development. Is this what they want for the future of education? If not, where are their ideas for counteracting the predictable consequences?

Two- They believe that significant innovation can only arise from outside the system, not within it. But, with performance revolving primarily around test-score data, both traditional public schools and public charter schools are at great risk of being narrowed into boxes instead of growing into innovative, dynamic, flexible centers of learning. I wrote a couple of months ago---be careful what you wish for, Frederick Hess et al. They promote performance-based pay based on test scores while they promote charter schools. But since charter schools are funded with public dollars they must follow the same accountability rules as traditional public schools. If test scores are the primary way to measure the proper and effective use of public dollars in public classrooms then the risk of narrowed teaching and learning exists for both traditional schools and charter schools. Is this what they had in mind? If not, how do they propose maintaining adequate accountability and encouraging innovation, without a double standard?

Three- They believe that on-line learning is a no-brainer for improving instruction because children are already so oriented toward technology. And they assume that it will save money. Fewer teachers with salaries and benefits. But the question remains. With less human-to-human interaction, discussion and debate, especially in communities that lack strong social and economic infrastructure, will young adults be more, or less, able to work, innovate and create TOGETHER? We are supposed to be educating and empowering whole human beings. What will we lose if there is too much of a shift to on-line learning. What is too much? Where is the balance? When does the tool of learning become an end instead of a means?

Are the business-model folks thinking about these things? I see few signs that they are. What I do hear from them and the media is that it is the teachers' unions who are alone resisting these shifts. That they are self-motivated. And, yes, there is a bit of that. It is their livelihood after all (although I do agree they need to be contributing more toward their health care and retirement to align better with the private sector). And they are professionals who understand the complexity of teaching our diverse children and are rightly frustrated by non-educators who think they know best. The politicians who are full throttle in this direction say they care about teachers' concerns but believe wrongly, for the most part, that parents and families are fully behind these shifts toward performance pay and "outsourcing." Dismissal of, to borrow the business lexicon, these first-tier "customers" and "clients" is hazardous and short-sighted.

As one whose children have recently graduated from public school and are either in college or out on their own, I'm frankly relieved that they've moved on. The testing culture was still somewhat in balance before they graduated, and over the long haul they did receive a rich, comprehensive education. They are whole human beings and have done well in higher education and in life. But, I worry about the path we're one and what that means for young families now and for my children when they have their own children. I've started telling them to keep a close eye on these trends. I say reluctantly that they may need to consider private school for their kids if they are the only schools that teach the whole child. I hate saying that, but it is not hard to predict such a future.

And what about children whose parents won't have the option of private school? Whose only option is the neighborhood school or charter school where testing may become the common teaching tool. Where more time is spent in front of a computer screen than working hand-in-hand with a teacher or in teams with other students. Where less time is spent exploring the arts and humanities, performing science and physics experiments, learning another language, studying the natural and built world with their hands, eyes and ears, debating and discussing current events, learning geography, creating journals, solving problems, designing, creating, innovating...

As I wrote yesterday, is this business-model direction going to transform our children into the leaders and workers, the innovators and implementers, the dreamers and doers that we need??? I'm increasingly alarmed that it may not. And I know that I am NOT alone in those fears. It's not just the teachers' unions. It's parents... and citizens...like me.

Not an either/or. We need college prep and career tech. We need dreamers and doers.

2011-07-10T11:30:00.000-04:00

We need literate, confident, engaged young adults who can read well, write well, communicate well, use technology well, calculate well, think well, anticipate well. Solving problems. Working in teams. Knowing how intangible ideas are created, but also how tangible things are made. Innovators and implementers, leaders and workers, dreamers and doers should no longer be two distinct classes. We've done that too long. In our schools, in our communities, in our society.

I've been away for awhile getting our house ready to sell in Florida. To make sure it's in the best shape possible, especially since it's an historic home built like a battleship but needing special loving care, I hired painters, landscapers, plumbers, carpenters, air conditioning technicians, appliance technicians and other smart "specialists" to help me accomplish that goal. I need their common-sense knowledge and individual expertise.

And then I read this article in the New York Times today. Serious budget cuts to career and technical education. Pointing out that there is inconsistency in quality, but also highlighting those programs and schools that are successfully combining academic skills and technical training to prepare students for higher thinking AND making things with their hands. Music to my ears. It's not an either/or as I argued for years while I was on the school board in Orlando, and since. While I fought to tear down longstanding gates to higher-level courses for more students, especially those from socio-economically deprived backgrounds, I also fought for solid career-tech programs. And spent a lot of time advocating for an education system that teaches ALL students at high levels, regardless of their background, regardless of their path. But, President Obama seems to be making unnecessary and harmful choices.

Yes, I am 100% for dramatically increasing the number of our young people, of all backgrounds, who are prepared for and graduate from college. With degrees to take them into this tough, global economy and the capacity to survive and thrive. To become those innovators, leaders and dreamers we need more than ever. But if we truly want to GROW the economic pie, and not just divide it up, and a less-stratified, more interconnected society, then we also need well-prepared implementers, workers and doers. We need to respect, support and prepare all young people as they make their way into our complicated world.

I couldn't get my house ready to sell without the contribution of hard-working, dependable, skilled technicians, craftsmen and laborers. We can't build a healthy society or a strong economy without them either.

Back to it. A blog from Israel. Thoughts on standardization and testing.

2011-07-02T13:10:00.000-04:00

Summer. Life. Trying to sell a house in awful-real-estate-market Florida. Will try hard to get back to my weekly postings. For now, here's this...

Looking for a recipe, I stumbled upon this gentle, thoughtful blog by a stay-at-home mother in Israel. Her most recent post was strikingly parallel to much writing these days about our over-emphasis on standardization and testing in our public schools. Clearly, this is not just an American problem. She refers to a book she's reading by Charlotte Mason, a homeschooling author, and includes these quotes,

“The fact that successful examination of one sort or another is the goal towards which most of our young people are labouring with feverish haste and with undue anxiety, is one which possibly calls for the scrutiny of the investigating Why?”

“The tendency of the grind is to imperil that individuality which is the one incomparably precious birthright of each of us. The very fact of a public examination compels that all who go in for it must study on the same lines.”

“As to the manner of study, this is ruled by the style of questions set in a given subject; and Dry-as-dust wins the day because it is easier and fairer to give marks upon definite facts than upon mere ebullitions of fancy or genius.” ...
“Both parents and teachers have the one desire, the advance of the child along the lines of character. Both groan equally under the limitations of the present system. Let us have courage, and united and concerted action will overthrow this Juggernaut that we have made.”

Food for thought. We have let this happen. What are we going to do about it?

Is narrow lens of standardized testing making us lose sight of our humanity? w/ update

2011-06-08T09:08:00.006-04:00

Last night, there was a thought-provoking story by education reporter, John Merrow, on the PBS Newshour. Watch the video here. Here are some highlights from the transcript.

Starting off...

JOHN MERROW: Reading is the foundation of all learning. But according to the nation's report card, only 33 percent of fourth-graders are competent readers.

At this elementary school in New York City, 33 percent would be good news. Last year on the state reading test, only 18 percent of fourth-graders were on grade level, strong evidence of a failing school. ...

Based on its reading scores, the school is failing. But, in person, it seems to be thriving. Is it a good school or a bad school? There may be a lot of schools like PS-1. How should they be judged? Do you believe what you read or what you see? Could educational quality be like beauty, in the eye of the beholder, or does the test score say it all? We went back to PS-1 to find out more.

He then brings viewers into PS-1 to listen, watch, ponder. Dedicated teachers using all kinds of strategies to teach. Children engaged, successfully learning. He interviews teachers, talks to students.

After visiting first-grade classrooms, he moves onto fourth grade.

By the end of the day, it was clear to me that most of PS-1's first-graders were on their way to becoming competent readers. So, what happens between first and fourth grade? Remember, according to last year's state test, only 18 percent of fourth-graders at PS-1 were reading on grade level.

We went upstairs to Michelle Alpert's fourth-grade class to find out.

MICHELLE ALPERT, Teacher: In first grade, it's all about reading the words. And everything is so literal. But by the time you get to fourth grade, it's -- there's a much bigger thinking component.

BRENDA CARTAGENA, Teacher: The fourth grade is a lot harder, a lot harder.

JOHN MERROW: Brenda Cartagena has been teaching for 12 years.

BRENDA CARTAGENA: If you look at the test, the third-grade test, and compare it to the fourth-grade test, it's night and day.

JOHN MERROW: The state's fourth-grade reading test expects students to draw inferences and conclusions from what they read, a complicated skill.

But why aren't children able to meet the demands of fourth grade? Alpert believes that, by the time students enter her class, their often difficult home lives have started to take a toll.

MICHELLE ALPERT: They're not as innocent anymore. They're realizing the things that are affecting their schoolwork. You know, I mean, I have homeless students in my room. I have students with fathers in jail. There's drugs. So, that obviously comes into play at a certain point as well.

JOHN MERROW: Both teachers believe that the social and academic challenges their students face in the early grades catch up to them by fourth grade.

BRENDA CARTAGENA: So, I have readers even as low as first grade through sixth grade.

JOHN MERROW: In your fourth-grade class.

BRENDA CARTAGENA: Right.

JOHN MERROW: So, your job is to do what?

BRENDA CARTAGENA: Make miracles.

He then sits down with two students whose test scores indicate that they are below grade level. They read passages from last year's standardized test. They answer the questions correctly.

JOHN MERROW: Because you learned that. OK. So, you can really take this apart.

These supposedly below-grade-level readers were able to read and understand passages from previous state tests. So, why were fourth-grade test scores so low?

Tell me about the kids. Are they nervous before the tests?

BRENDA CARTAGENA: Some of them, they do get a lot of anxiety, some of them. And some of them will shut down because they get so nervous.

JOHN MERROW: In many public schools, before students take state tests, they spend up to several weeks preparing and practicing.

Do you spend a lot of time teaching kids how to take a test?

BRENDA CARTAGENA: To some degree, yes, because I do think that there is an art to test-taking. So, I want to give them whatever strategies I can to make them more successful, you know, especially my -- my lower-functioning ones.

JOHN MERROW: For school leaders and policy-makers across the country, test scores are typically the only evidence used to determine whether a school is doing a good job. The stakes are high.

BRENDA CARTAGENA: The system takes the fun out of reading. I want them to read for enjoyment. I want them to grab that book because it's fun. I tell them, reading, you travel, you meet new friends, you learn how to do new things. But it's very difficult, you know? They take the joy out. And it's hard to infuse it back.

MICHELLE ALPERT: I don't know what the better solution is. But I do think obviously that this puts way too much value on test scores. There has to be some sort of -- you know, something else taken into account if you really want to measure a school's success, a teacher's success, a student's success.

JOHN MERROW: So, what you think? Is PS-1 a good school or a bad school? You may have already made up your mind, but the people who make decisions about budgets, about who gets hired, who gets fired, they rely on test scores. PS-1's fourth-graders took the state test in early May. Those results aren't expected until July.

-------

In real life with real teachers, real children, real families, real communities, our gut tells us that a thriving school is defined in many ways, both tangible and intangible. Parents know that. Teachers know that. It's no different than walking into someone's home. There's physical evidence of stability and strength, but there are other elements that aren't physical, aren't measurable. Behaviors and environments that make children feel safe, nurtured, supported, inspired, engaged. Where there's order, but spontaneity. Rules, but flexibility. Expectations, but compassion. Discipline, but laughter. In other words, humanity at its best.

A school is really an extension of home for our children. And for many children whose families are not stable and strong, their school is their home. Not just because they spend a good part of their young lives there, but because teaching and learning, just like parenting and maturing, are such human endeavors. Many, many things define good parenting. Many, many things define good teaching. Many, many things define a good home. Many, many things define a good school.

If we accept this as true, then why are we listening to those who insist we define schools and classrooms through the narrow lens of standardized test scores? Would we use such a simplistic measure in our homes? Our families? No, we wouldn't because it wouldn't be fair, accurate or complete. Over time, such a narrow lens would weaken the rich, complex human fabric that comprises our homes and our families. We would begin to think those wonderful, dynamic intangibles are unimportant. And since schools and classrooms are, through their warm humanity, homes and families to our children, it is not fair, accurate or complete to measure educational success primarily through cold data.

Reformers who have made standards and testing the end-all and be-all would shrug off such criticism. They insist they are right, and have invested enormous capital in their assumption that data is everything. It's entwined now in our politics, our public policies and the way our tax dollars are spent on behalf our our children.

But, schools and classrooms cannot become factories. Or assembly lines. Our children cannot be standardized. They are human beings. Complicated, unpredictable, malleable. Hungry to learn, participate, contribute. Solve problems together. Mature together. Move through the inevitable, sometimes-crazy up's and down's of growing up. Discuss, debate, disagree, agree. Provide mutual support and respect while they challenge and hold high expectations for one another. Discover their inner creativity, voice, strengths and interests. Guide each other through personal struggles and applaud each other in triumph. Just like families in strong, stable homes.

Discomfort and concern are growing over our nation's high-stakes, disproportionate focus on standardized testing. It may be because down deep we sense the loss of something precious and fundamental. Our humanity.

Update: Just saw that Washington Post's Valerie Strauss published John Merrow's story (on PS-1) on her blog, The Answer Sheet.

It's time we all grow up (w/ update)

2011-06-06T11:09:00.005-04:00

Last week's Stateline Weekly describes shifts toward managed care in Medicaid and higher contributions of public employees to their healthcare plans- The first, Managed Care Explained: Why a Medicaid Innovation is Spreading, and the second, State Workers to Pay More for Health Benefits.

While the recession and the Affordable Care Act have pushed states to move in this direction, and while complaints, concerns and caution from advocates for the poor, elderly and disabled, as well as rural communities, are rising, change is unavoidable. Both Medicaid and state healthcare plans are eating disproportionately into state budgets. There must be better ways to cover more people who are uninsured and maybe managed care and other innovations or reforms will get us there. Unlike the federal government, the vast majority of states must balance their budget and, frankly, these times are opportunities to ask the hard questions about common practice. For instance, there's growing and troubling disparity between what public employees and private employees contribute to their respective health care plans (and retirement plans, for that matter.) And even though we should be talking more about how we make ALL employees, both public and private, more secure in their health care (and retirement), it seems only fair that public employees chip in more for their health care (and retirement).

Undoubtedly, there will be a lot learned along the way, i.e. what works and what doesn't as these shifts play out. And as long as the real-world input of various advocates is respected, and if politicians develop the capacity to be both pragmatic and compassionate, the path can be productive. And while I share some of the advocates' concerns, it's becoming clear that change is here to stay. Many of the real-world solutions are playing out at the state level, at least in those with governors and legislatures (of both parties) who are demonstrably humble, honest and pragmatic. In other words, serving as "real" leaders. I'm not too fond of any politicians these days (especially the more arrogant extremists like Rick Scott, Chris Christie and others), but there are some who are showing the necessary courage to lead us out of our troubles. And there are sectors and layers of the electorate, more than the media and political operatives acknowledge, who are willing to listen, learn, and lean toward change, reform and shared sacrifice.

(In this week's Stateline Weekly is an informative article about the opportunities and complexities of restructuring state agencies when new governors ride into town, especially now with the revenue shortfalls they face.)

This brings me to a recent column by Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post. He wrote what I've been thinking for the past several months. That our national economic and fiscal problems are enormous, but too many of our elected leaders at the national level are acting small. By small, I mean lacking the capacity to be humble, honest and pragmatic. Mr. Perlstein calls on the President to be the grown-up.

The better strategy is for the president to forget about trying to broker deals between congressional leaders who have no instinct for compromise and put forward his own bold program — not the liberal fantasy he and his party might prefer, but practical, centrist compromises the country will actually accept: A 10-year budget-balancing plan that mixes spending cuts and tax increases. Market-based compensation for federal workers. Cost-saving reforms to Medicare and Social Security. A big push on trade, exports and worker training. An energy tax to reduce carbon emissions, rebated annually to taxpayers. More drilling for oil and gas in exchange for tighter regulation and higher royalties. Elimination of hundreds of low-performing government programs. A big new infrastructure bank. Tougher regulation of Wall Street, and lighter regulation on Main Street.

The aim wouldn’t be to get any of it through the current do-nothing Congress, but to create a mandate for the next Congress and the next administration. By demonstrating his willingness to take on the ideologues, the special interests and the cable bullyboys of both the left and the right, Obama would liberate himself and the country from the political rut we’re all in. And in the process he could finally make good on what was always the central promise of his presidency: to change the way business is done in Washington.

Then, this morning, I read a front-page article about the Republican Party's "No-Tax Pledge," the singular dogma they rely on to get elected and base their orthodoxy. I am fully aware of the pledge. It's alive and well in the state of Florida, my home for almost nineteen years. Now that I'm back in Virginia, where I was raised, I can look back on those Florida years and see clearly and painfully the impact of such rigid political ideology. Over time, it paralyzes and weakens public institutions. It polarizes citizens and their politics. It prevents compromise and shuns consensus. It narrows a state's potential and delays progress. It weakens its infrastructure and dilutes its dreams.

Now, we have the same thing playing out at the national level. And since Congress doesn't have to balance its budget and too many members care more about political survival than governing, our country sits perilously at idle. Yes, the Democrats have their dogmatic adherents on the left who stand in the way of progress (despite the fact that they call themselves "progressives"), and I have been among those who have expressed disappointment and displeasure with them. Nonetheless, today's Democrats accept within their overall ranks a broad spectrum of viewpoints and have shown a greater capacity to compromise and reach pragmatic solutions. Today's Republicans, on the other hand, see only black and white. Compromise is a moral failing. Anyone who does not speak the party line is a traitor. This all thanks to the blood oath they're forced to sign by the very un-humble Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. If they don't do as they are told, Norquist and his army of henchmen will swiftly cull them from the herd. Referring to Senator Tom Coburn, the most outspoken of the Gang of Six (the bipartisan group working independently to develop a deficit reduction proposal), Norquist describes him as,

a “malignant” cell in the body politic. 'So,” Norquist said, “we use chemo and radiation to protect all the healthy cells around it, so it doesn’t grow and metastasize."

In other words, a cancer.

Former California legislator, Dave Cogburn, another victim of Norquist's wrath, reflected on his experience-

Although he agrees with Norquist that taxes are too high in California, he’s not sure he would sign the pledge again. Pledges, he said, make it hard to respond to changing circumstances.

Republicans “have lost the art of compromise,” Cogdill said. “If we don’t get everything we want, then we let the whole thing burn.”

Think about it. A cancer. Let the whole thing burn. It's all about political power. Dominance. Ego. Rhetoric. Soundbites. What it's NOT about is fulfilling a civic responsibility. Or being honest. Or humble. Or pragmatic. Or doing what's in the best interests of our country and its people. The tea party movement on one hand asks some hard questions of government and politicians, but for the most part has its own rigid ideology, and a reckless, naive mentality. It's much more likely to deepen the "Norquization" of the Republican Party. Clearly not a formula for reaching compromise or finding solutions. (For example, I just heard on the radio a popular tea-party leader brag how he went into debt, even depleting college funds for his children, to help fund the tea party. Instead of alarm, it was greeted with applause. Is that the kind of mentality we need in spending our public dollars and sustaining our public institutions? I don't think so.)

Some states with enough real leaders are finding solutions, albeit with measurable pain and/or controversy. Some states and our Congress with too few real leaders are not. Selfishly and stubbornly, they are inclined more toward prolonging stasis or exacerbating conflict. But this is unsustainable. And I'm not the only one worried that we may have to endure another economic crisis before they come back to earth. But there is another way. We could all grow up. The electorate. The citizenry. Accept that change is necessary. That cuts are necessary. But that sufficient revenues are needed to sustain necessary public institutions. That old phrase, no pain, no gain. If we want REAL leadership, and the honesty, humility and pragmatism that's called for, then we need to REALLY want it. Demand it. Fulfill our own responsibility to be realistic. And honest with ourselves and each other. To be less selfish and stubborn, too. Our elected leaders do REPRESENT us, and they should REFLECT our values, principles and goals. It is a circle. We are one big, messy family. It's time we all grow up.

Education Reform: What if Bill Gates and President Obama are wrong?

2011-06-01T12:40:00.003-04:00

A few months ago, I started a series of posts entitled Education Reform Journal. Reflections on my experience as a school board member, built on daily reading and research to aid the evolution of my thoughts. This amidst the growing criticism and skepticism of where President Obama and many elected leaders (and deep-pocketed philanthropists like Bill Gates) are taking our public schools. Two recent articles in the New York Times tied it up a bit more for me.

Then, yesterday, a guest post on Ezra Klein's blog hit the nail on the head.

In the first article (on the front page of the New York Times), Behind Grass-Roots Advocacy, Bill Gates, Sam Dillon reveals the depth and breadth of the Gates Foundation's reach in how public education in the United States is being "re-formed." I put this in quotes because my understanding of reform is to strengthen what works and fix what doesn't. On the contrary, Gates (and hundreds of well-positioned satellite organizations and well-healed individuals) are reshaping the whole education system, not simply "reforming" it. Most who are leading the charge are big-personality, bottom-line business executives or philanthropists and few are experienced educators.

In some cases, Mr. Gates is creating entirely new advocacy groups. The foundation is also paying Harvard-trained data specialists to work inside school districts, not only to crunch numbers but also to change practices. It is bankrolling many of the Washington analysts who interpret education issues for journalists and giving grants to some media organizations.

“We’ve learned that school-level investments aren’t enough to drive systemic changes,” said Allan C. Golston, the president of the foundation’s United States program. “The importance of advocacy has gotten clearer and clearer.”

The foundation spent $373 million on education in 2009, the latest year for which its tax returns are available, and devoted $78 million to advocacy — quadruple the amount spent on advocacy in 2005. Over the next five or six years, Mr. Golston said, the foundation expects to pour $3.5 billion more into education, up to 15 percent of it on advocacy.

It's safe to say no one unelected person or privately held organization has had such influence on public policy, especially affecting an institution so deeply democratic as public education and impacting the lives of so many children, and the adults who teach them.

The second article, in the same edition of the New York Times, The Math of Heartbreak by Michael Sokolove, is a visit to Levittown, Pennsylvania where continuing budget cuts are impacting the town's public school district.

When he first introduced cuts at a public meeting last month, Samuel Lee, the superintendent of the Bristol Township School District, was plainspoken and direct. He did not say that everyone would pull together and the children would get the same great education, but, rather, that worthy programs would be dismantled and young teachers would lose jobs. “Everything that is going to be presented tonight is not good for our kids,” he said as about 300 teachers, parents and students looked on. “We are heartbroken.” ...

The discussions I heard over the school budget sounded much like a couple talking around their kitchen table with a stack of bills, no hope of paying them and nothing but bad options. Mr. Lee, the superintendent, called the shortfall “catastrophic” and added, “What’s worse, I can’t promise things will get better next year.”...

Parents in Bristol Township do not generally have the means or, in some cases, the inclination to pay for art or music lessons for their children, or for prep courses and academic enhancements common in wealthier communities. As in many blue-collar towns, the schools are counted on to round out children — to educate them in the basics, push gifted students higher, pull up the lagging ones, and to give everyone a degree of culture and a vision of what exists beyond the horizon. It’s a big, expensive job.

“You want to be able to say that the amount of money you have to work with doesn’t matter, and you can do the same quality job with less. And we can try to do that,” Mr. Lee said as we talked in his office. “But in what other enterprise is that true?”

To compensate for falling revenues, it's been reported elsewhere that the Gates coalition, including Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, think bigger classes, on-line learning and tinkering with teacher compensation will fill budget holes. Not surprisingly, Mr. Gates, a numbers guy, sees education as a technical problem to solve and promotes ideas that are almost entirely data driven. These ideas are easily picked up by politicians and other non-educator "reformers" who are looking for the "big sexy idea" to solve all problems in public education. Most are now convinced that improving education means running schools like businesses. So the the big, sexy ideas include: paying teachers based heavily on standardized test scores of their students ("performance pay"), recruiting non-traditional teachers through Teach for America (bypassing the need to improve schools of education), recruiting business executives through the Broad Foundation Superintendents Academy to "run the business of education," and embedding standardization and testing to, they promise, raise our nation's rankings in international assessments, such as PISA and TIMMS. President Obama and most of our elected leaders in Congress and many statehouses support and are determined to implement these ideas.

But the Levittown article is a story about our traditional public school system where the vast majority of school-age children are educated. It could be repeated in hundreds of communities around the country. School boards, superintendents, principals, teachers, citizen committees, parents striving to work together to educate all of the children in their neighborhood and regional schools. They don't always agree, they don't always have the solution, but the whole point is that they are doing it together. And they know their children. They know their communities. Besides, our public schools are built upon the idea that we teach every child from the ground up, one at a time and collectively. Individual and together. To be educated, but also to be engaged citizens. It's complex. Complicated. Dynamic. And not easy. It can't be made simple nor cheap. It's not black and white nor always 100% successful as the Gates coalition seems to think it can be. In these economic times, our public school system is vulnerable. As additional revenue, programs like the federal grant competition, Race to the Top and grants from private foundations, like Gates, are tempting, even with all the strings attached. And because "community" and "democracy" appear to be less valued by the the Gates coalition, even necessarily evils to work around or dominate, their data-driven ideas are becoming more and more the norm.

This coalition is certainly happy that they're "winning," but what if they're wrong? What if the great strengths of community and democracy become irrelevant? What are the potential consequences of this path?

Recent jobs data revealed that education is one sector of the economy that has been relatively stable through our ongoing recession. As new teachers are hired, especially young ones, the culture of standards, testing and data is what they know. So, if we realize that we are on a wrong path, how hard will it be to re-train them to teach collaboratively instead of competitively? Or re-train them to teach the whole child, the whole young adult, instead of mainly preparing students to take standardized tests? Or re-train them to work within a democratic institution instead of a top-down, top-heavy bureaucracy? Or re-train them to work within a community of neighborhood and regional schools instead of a competitive, privatized network of "education providers"?

Increased standardization, intense competition, weakened democracy, sidelined community. That's where we seem to be headed. And President Obama and the vast majority of our elected leaders are convinced it's the right path. But is that where we want to go? Is that where we need to go?

Intuitively we know the opposite is what our society, economy and children need. A fully integrated, healthy public school system. Robust, community-based, democratic public schools with local school boards focused on all children, and trained to understand education, public policy-making, budgeting, finance, strategic planning, school construction and, yes, politics. Communities and parents educated, empowered and engaged to understand the complexities of educating all children. Superintendents and principals who are well-educated, well-experienced leaders who know curriculum, know instruction, know children, know communities. Teachers who have been educated at high levels, work in schools where they are well-supported, well-compensated, well-respected, and deeply engaged in the communities they serve.

So, yesterday's post by Dana Goldstein was like an echo to me. The title says it all, Is the U.S. doing teacher reform all wrong?

There is good reason for education reform efforts to focus on teaching. We know that although about two-thirds of the achievement gap can be explained by family poverty, teachers are among the most important in-school factors that effect student learning, with some teachers being better than others at helping children progress. We also know that most teachers are given cursory and unhelpful (if they are evaluated at all) and that tenure makes it difficult to remove bad teachers from the classroom.

To address these problems, many American education reformers spent the past decade demanding that districts and states get tough with teachers and provide them with more prescriptive advice on how to improve their practice. The political results are the new state laws written in response to the Obama administration’s Race to the Top grant program, some of which base up to 51 percent of a teacher’s evaluation on student test-score data.

But what if the United States is doing teacher reform all wrong?

That’s the suggestion of a new report from the National Center on Education and the Economy, a think tank funded mostly by large corporations and their affiliated foundations. The report takes a close look at how the countries that are kicking our academic butts — Finland, China and Canada — recruit, prepare and evaluate teachers. What it finds are policy agendas vastly different from our own, in which prospective educators are expected to spend a long time preparing for the classroom and are then given significant autonomy in how to teach, with many fewer incentives and punishments tied to standardized tests.

Indeed.

Not only then should we be questioning the "big, sexy idea" of performance pay for teachers, but we should also be questioning other ideas that Bill Gates et al are embedding in our public policy and classroom practice. Those that, however well-intended, are moving us well away from our democratic roots and the role of community in how we educate our children. And may not produce the economic or social impact they are so quick to promise. No matter our varying political leanings and loyalties, we should all start asking hard questions about this current path before it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to turn around.

Words for today's college grads

2011-05-22T10:10:00.002-04:00

With all due respect to the politicians, the bankers, the philanthropists who spoke at college and university commencements this month, I found it refreshing that this year's commencement speaker at Syracuse University (my daughter's now-alma mater) was J. Craig Venter. He is a biologist and entrepreneur who was one of the first to sequence the human genome. (He founded Celera Genomics, The Institute for Genomic Research and the J. Craig Venter Institute. At the latter, he and colleagues are working to create synthetic biological organisms and document genetic diversity in the world's oceans.)

He's an unassuming person with an outsider's intellect who with candor encouraged graduates to find ways to tackle some of the world's emerging, vexing problems. His speech was not ordinary, and appropriate to Syracuse University, an intellectual hub that encourages cross-disciplinary study and what they call "scholarship in action"-

Syracuse University is driven by its vision, Scholarship in Action—a commitment to forging bold, imaginative, reciprocal, and sustained engagements with our many constituent communities, local as well as global. SU is a public good, an anchor institution positioned to play an integral role in today’s knowledge-based, global society by leveraging a precious commodity—intellectual capital—with partners from all sectors of the economy: public, private, and non-profit. Each partner brings its strengths to the table, where collectively we address the most pressing problems facing our community. In doing so, we invariably find that the challenges we face locally resonate globally.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the speech-

I think it’s essentially impossible to make advances, discoveries and improvements in the human condition without fighting the status quo and established mindsets. Perhaps that’s why some of you invited me here today. I sincerely hope most of you are ready to make that fight to change things because I cannot imagine a time in recent history where graduates have a greater challenge facing them. I was born in 1946 as one of only 2.3 billion people on our planet. Today, we have three of us for everybody that existed when I was born. And on October 26 of this year, we’re going to pass the 7 billion mark. At the current rate of population growth, we will add the equivalent of another India and China to the world’s population in the next 25 years. So just to put it in context with some of the things you’ve learned, when Columbus first sailed to America, the world’s population was only slightly greater than the current population of our country. It took until 1804 to get one billion people on the planet, and it took another 123 years, until 1927, to add the second billion. Today, it’s taking less than 12 years to add another billion people to our already crowded, finite biosystem.

So by your 10^th college reunion, how are you going to produce enough food, clean water, medicine, housing, waste treatment and energy for nearly 8 billion people, when we can’t do that very well for 1 billion fewer today?
We very clearly need new ideas, new discoveries, new inventions, and new radical changes in how we produce food, how we generate energy, where that energy comes from and how we deal with these issues in society. Is this class of 2011 up for those challenges?

So by burning coal and oil and deforestation, we’re currently adding about 14 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year, as we play Russian roulette with our planet. Are you amongst those that believe that this extreme weather that we’re beginning to experience is simply due to random fluctuations?

And-

Just think if we can harness the immense power of the billions of years of evolution, together with these new tools of synthetic genomics, that perhaps we have the opportunity to wean ourselves from burning ancient hydrocarbons for energy and transportation, all the while adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. I predict that carbon dioxide will become the future raw material for almost every human endeavor, from energy to chemicals to food. Exxon Mobil provided my company with $300 million to try and create a new algae cell that can produce more than 10,000 gallons of a new biocrude from carbon dioxide, per acre per year. This biocrude can go into their refineries that they can make normal gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from.

Many of you here are familiar with existing agriculture systems, but they’re incredibly inefficient, particularly when we try to use them for alternate energy production. So if we were to try and replace transportation fuels in the U.S. with corn-based fuels, it would require a facility three times the size of our country. If we could do this with synthetic algae, it would require a facility only one-third the size of the state of New York.

We’re now in an era where biology and synthetic genomics—and this is very important for this graduating class—we’re limited only by our imaginations right now. Perhaps we can create algae that taste like beef but with higher protein content and nutritional value to help feed a hungry world population. I’m sure you all know that on the order of five million children die each year from malnutrition, a number that’s likely to increase with the expanding population. In other areas we’re working with NASA trying to design new organisms that would enable distant spaceflight. But what if we could just send digital information into space and have it boot up sometime in the future into new living systems? New emerging infections like SARS and AIDS represent major challenges for the future. We’re working with Novartis trying to rapidly produce new flu vaccines using synthetic genomics. Our goal is to create vaccines against emerging infections in hours or days, instead of months or years.

He ended with-

Now commencement speakers usually give advice on how to be successful. I’m not going to do that. Few who knew me early on would have predicted my success. My path in life was profoundly altered by being drafted—off my surf board—and ending up as a medic in the middle of the Vietnam War. Most of you have no clue as to what unique challenges and highly motivating, life-altering experiences and events that lay in your path. I can only ask and hope that some of you will not get swallowed up into your everyday existence, but rather these incredible challenges for our future will incite you to want to change that future. Change is 100% dependent on motivated individuals. I often get asked at public lectures about pronouncements of futurists who say we’re on the verge of perpetuating human life and immortality. My answer to them—and to you—is the only certain way to achieve immortality is to do something highly meaningful with your life the short time you are here. Thank you, congratulations, and best wishes for your future.

If you are inclined, read the whole speech and maybe look up the commencement speech given at your alma mater this year. I'm going to do that and hope for another one like Mr. Venter's that opens a door or two to a future that will be better... if we are all honest about current and projected realities, challenge one another to live responsibly, and empower young people (and frankly, all of us) to take risks and creatively solve the problems we face.

As a worthy footnote, the speaker at my daughter's convocation (The School for Visual and Performing Arts) was Pete Yorn. His words were a good compliment to Mr. Venter's. He's a humble sort of guy who shared his personal journey, majoring in other fields to please his family to realizing that inside was a talented, passionate singer-songwriter. He started off saying that while he was comfortable in his own skin while performing, the thought of giving a speech was intimidating. But as he read from his notes, it was evident he had embraced the opportunity to reflect on the choices he'd made and acknowledge those who had helped him along the way. He encouraged graduates to be honest about their true selves, their passions... keep at it, take risks, don't take "crap" from anyone, gather those around you who believe in you.

From their childhood.... to quote one of my daughters' favorite authors (and mine), Dr. Seuss--"Today is your day, your mountain is waiting, so get on your way." There are enormous challenges ahead for today's graduates, but I believe they are up to the task. Enough of them anyway, and hopefully more.

A gift to my daughter

2011-05-11T10:24:00.003-04:00

My oldest daughter graduates from college this weekend. A great achievement, a crossroads, a view to a new horizon. Exciting. But bittersweet, too.

For a gift to her on this occasion, I borrowed an idea I stumbled upon recently. (In a book I love, by the way- Making Toast: A Family Story - I sat down and read it without stopping.)

This gift has become sort of a magnum opus. Overstatement, but it did grow into a bigger project than I expected. One that pushed me to remember and reflect on my child's life so far, what it means to be a woman in these times, and what is this crazy, wonderful life all about anyway. I asked a number of my female friends and members of the family to write down some thoughts on the subject of womanhood. A great outpouring it has been.

For my part, I wrote a lot of different things, and included some wonderful quotes that I discovered. Here are a few worth sharing with everyone---

These on... "The unique character and capacity of a woman."

Do you not know I am a woman? When I think, I must speak. -William Shakespeare

A woman's guess is much more accurate than a man's certainty. -Rudyard Kipling

There is in every true woman’s heart, a spark of heavenly fire, which lies dormant in the broad daylight of prosperity, but which kindles up and beams and blazes in the dark hour of adversity. -Washington Irving

There came a time when the risk to remain tight in the bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. -Anais Nin

My greatest strength is common sense. I'm really a standard brand - like Campbell's tomato soup or Baker's chocolate. -Katherine Hepburn

Above all, be the heroine of your life, not the victim. -Nora Ephron

Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. -Marie Curie

A woman is the full circle. Within her is the power to create, nurture and transform.
-Diane Mariechild

A woman is like a tea bag - you can't tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water.
-Eleanor Roosevelt

You must learn to be still in the midst of activity and to be vibrantly alive in repose.
-Indira Ghandi

“How do you juggle it all?” people constantly ask me, with an accusatory look in their eyes. “You’re screwing it all up, aren’t you?” their eyes say. My standard answer is that I have the same struggles as any working parent but with the good fortune to be working at my dream job. Or sometimes I just hand them a juicy red apple I’ve poisoned in my working-mother witch cauldron and fly away. - Tina Fey

The only thing better than singing is more singing. -Ella Fitzgerald

I'm not afraid of storms, for I'm learning to sail my ship. - Louisa May Alcott

And this poem from Maya Angelou that a friend shared--

PHENOMENAL WOMAN
by Maya Angelou

Pretty women wonder where my secret lies
I'm not cute or built to suit a fashion model's size
But when I start to tell them
They think I'm telling lies.
I say,
It's in the reach of my arms
The span of my hips,
The stride of my step,
The curl of my lips.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That's me.

I walk into a room
Just as cool as you please,
And to a man,
The fellows stand or
Fall down on their knees.
Then they swarm around me,
A hive of honey bees.
I say,
It's the fire in my eyes
And the flash of my teeth,
The swing of my waist,
And the joy in my feet.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That's me.

Men themselves have wondered
What they see in me.
They try so much
But they can't touch
My inner mystery.
When I try to show them,
They say they still can't see.
I say
It's in the arch of my back,
The sun of my smile,
The ride of my breasts,
The grace of my style.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That's me.

Now you understand
Just why my head's not bowed.
I don't shout or jump about
Or have to talk real loud.
When you see me passing
It ought to make you proud.
I say,
It's in the click of my heels,
The bend of my hair,
The palm of my hand,
The need of my care,
'Cause I'm a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That's me.

from And Still I Rise by Maya Angelou
copyright © 1978 by Maya Angelou.

I'll be away for a little while. Be back late next week. Happy spring!

Reforming the American public education system. Are we on the wrong path?

2011-05-05T12:03:00.002-04:00

Thanks to An Urban Teacher's Education for this Texas Tribune link-

A University of Texas physics professor looks at Texas public education data and arrives at some provocative, worrisome conclusions. (He is also a co-director of the university's UTeach program.) Very smart. Very intuitive. Looking at data. Really looking at data. Asking essential questions at a critical juncture.

In the three video interviews with Professor Marder--

Does teacher quality play the largest role in student learning? Marder says, "No, it’s poverty."

Will charter schools provide urgently needed opportunities for students to reach high levels of achievement. Marder says, "No, secondary charter schools in Texas lead to much lower levels of student performance than comparable public schools, and across the nation secondary charter schools at best keep up with comparable public schools."

How is public education like flying a Boeing jet? (Paraphrased) Boeing became the world leader of civil aviation by creating a new-age jet that was flaw-tolerant, not flaw-free. Are we taking the same approach in public education or is our approach actually taking us to the bottom instead of the top?... The data show that we are fooling ourselves to say that... accountability by itself, improving teacher quality by itself, while neglecting the influences of poverty and other reforms.. will take us to the top. Look at the data. Really look at the data.

(Plus, Marder analyzes more data sets on his website, which can be found by following this link.)

In the last two days, I came across these two commentaries. Both are worth a read. The fact that they are outside observers is prescient and significant.

The first challenges some assumptions of those who promote performance pay for teachers.

Okay so here is the nub of my disagreement with Yglesias. I’m not against changing compensation schemes. I’m against changing them by scrapping the old system and relying solely on test-results and the political whims of state and local governments. But more fundamentally, I’m against the entire edifice of testing-and-accountability.

I want to tear it all down and start over.

You simply cannot attract good people to teaching if the teaching profession devolves into high-stakes-testing as the top priority. That runs counter to everything that we instinctively understand about what makes for a good, rounded education. We create a narrow idea of what learning ought to be, when instead we should be awakening children’s imaginations and sense of curiosity.

The second hints at the growing backlash against current education reform. The writer, Kevin Drum, voices his own growing skepticism-

Maybe this is nothing. Maybe I just happened to see a few anti-reform pieces over the space of a few days and it struck me as more of a trend than it really is. Or maybe it's just a projection of my own growing skepticism of the ed reform agenda. I'm not sure. One of these days I'm going to have to take the time to actually write a longish post on the subject called "10 Reasons I'm Increasingly Skeptical of the Ed Reform Agenda." I've already got the reasons, but I haven't yet done the work to flesh them out into a coherent argument. Someday I promise I will.

Hopefully, he'll write it sooner than later. And I hope others, lots and lots of others, join him. Because, although I tend to be a glass-half-full kind of person, I worry that we may not be able to turn things around if we go too far down a path that turns out to be... just plain wrong.

My worry is only amplified by the many policymakers, politicians, opinion leaders... and Americans in general... who do NOT seem to be listening to these serious concerns.

Not a matter of love vs. hate. Sometimes, you just have to do what you have to do.

2011-05-03T09:16:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Ezra Klein for recommending this post on the blog, Rethinking Security, by Adam Elkus. He reflects on the quote that's been circulated since the killing of Bin Laden-

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

Mr. Elkus disagrees. He writes that war or conflict aren't caused by some abstraction like hate, nor is the weapon of love a realistic weapon against them. Defeating a fanatical murderer like Bin Laden, destroying a megalomaniac like Hitler, or tearing down entrenched armature like segregation or apartheid, are not simply matters of choosing love over hate. Each war, each conflict is different. Both in cause and remedy. And the more clear-eyed and rational we look at them, the better.

Bin Laden was never looking for an accommodation or a compromise. Like Lenin and Robspierre before him, he was looking to overthrow the ancien regime and put everyone associated with it to the guillotine. His fanaticism and willingness to hurt innocents knew no bounds, and we can only guess at what horrors might have ensued if he actually succeeded in his mad quest to impose his own political order on the Middle East. So in the end a Navy SEAL addressed the "root cause" of Bin Laden's grievances by putting a bullet through his temple.

The longer we go on believing in the message of this quote, that only love can vanquish evil, the longer we set ourselves up for tragedy. Love did not stop the Japanese rampage through China, love did not end slavery in the American South, and love did not stop Napoleon's attempt to dominate Europe.

This is not to say that love is weak---love is one of the most powerful things imaginable, and anyone who has experienced it or has had the pleasure of giving it to others understands that. Hate is, at least for me, the most draining thing imaginable and something I try to avoid at all costs.

But neither love or hate are policies, strategies, or tactics. They're only emotions and ideal categories. They are not instrumental devices that we use to get what we want. So let's stop pretending that they are causal forces, that somehow rejoicing in the end of a mass murderer is going to conjure up more hate which in turn leads to more conflict.

This deepened my thoughts regarding the going-to-the-streets reaction of young people with childhoods marked by 9/11. Their "celebrations" weren't blood-lust as some have implied them to be. I think they were more visceral, even more rational, than that. Like the young conscience was saying... simply... "Sometimes you just have to do what you have to do." Strategic, swift, cold. Done. And the gut sensing that when you come out on the other side of the action, the world will be a bit safer... cleaner... better... for awhile.

Demise of Bin Laden. The 9/11 generation reacts. Update

2011-05-02T12:08:00.008-04:00

I had stopped watching Morning Joe (MSNBC) because of their extremely biased coverage and commentary on education reform, but this morning it was where I went for coverage of the killing of terrorist kingpin, Osama Bin Laden. I knew they would have a variety of voices (unlike education reform) on this earth-tilting action. Comments by the journalist David Gregory resonated with me the most.

I stayed up and waited impatiently last night to watch the President's announcement. I wish he'd showed more emotion, more passion, but I know it's not his nature and it was more important that he display gravitas and clarity of purpose. Afterwards, I couldn't go to sleep and so watched the coverage of building crowds outside the White House and at Ground Zero. I saw the emotion, the passion that I think I was seeking, and noticed so many young faces, many close to the ages of my own children.

Our youngest child then called. A freshman in college out in the Midwest, far away from us but in the middle of a crowd of her friends. Budding journalist. (Yes, journalism. Somebody has to keep gathering and reporting the news. The facts. All the more important on a day like today.) Loves history. Follows current events, politics, issues. In the call, I heard firsthand the emotion, the passion that I just saw on the TV screen. Lots of background chatter, jubilance. "Where are you? Sounds like there are two dozen people in the room." Oh, we're all squeezed into a friend's dorm room. "We can't believe this!" A little later, I texted to comment about the growing crowds in NYC and DC, and wondered if it was spreading to their campus. I asked if they were headed to the streets. "No, but kids are going totally crazy here. Definitely some patriotic parties tonight." Then a little later, "Woooo! Go Obama! I didn't realize how emotional we'd get. My friend cried during his speech! Really crazy night." Update: From the website, Next Gen Journal, reports from campuses around the country.

As I look back, I always knew that 9/11 made a big impact on our children and their friends as they made their way to adulthood. To them, I think, Bin Laden personified the "monster in the closet," that menacing stranger in the dark. The big, bad wolf. Darth Vader. Voldemort. He must have lurked in their heads all these years for them to have such a visceral reaction to yesterday's announcement. No doubt, many others are responding to this event in more somber ways. But the call and those texts revealed to me that it's a--however brief--relief for young people whose childhoods were defined in many ways by 9/11 and all that's taken place since. I remember my older child telling me when volunteering at a summer art camp a couple of years ago, that 9/11 had somehow come up. The kids didn't know about it, and she realized that to have such a horrific event seared into your memory changes your perspective on life forever. And distinguishes you from those who didn't share it.

This morning, David Gregory mused about the impact of 9/11 on the lives of of the young people who are now in college. That the event was probably at the root of their jubilant reaction to the killing of Bin Laden. I felt his words were tumbling out of my own head.

There will be lots of analysis, commentary.... we'll tune out over time and return to our everyday lives. Life must go on, of course. And fears and cynicism will seep back into our thinking.

But yesterday is, without a doubt, a significant moment in history. A triumph. May 1, 2011. And no small measure of retribution.

The times ahead will remain complex. The solutions to conflict, the responses to threats will not always be clear, nor will they always be successful. But, right now, I think the work and sacrifices of thousands over the last almost-ten years have helped make our world a safer place and set the stage for this successful action. It is a moment when an event or a person can be labeled right or wrong, even good or evil. Sorry, to anyone who thinks that's politically incorrect. But, come on, the definitions of evil... "morally reprehensible," "causing harm, injury or pain," "bad or blameworthy by report," "characterized by anger or spite; malicious." Who is a better example of those things than Osama Bin Laden?

I think our young people intuitively sense the complexities of our world, but also are fresh, honest and open enough to acknowledge that there are times when a decision is black and white. When justice must be meted out. And a moment is life or death. We can all hope and dream for a world without war. Without hate. Without conflict. And work ardently toward it. But humanity is complicated. And there will always be despicable people who seek to delude, dominate and destroy others. Like Bin Laden.

For today then, it cannot be denied that the world is a whole lot safer without him. I am happy that my children and all children now live in that world. And grateful to the intelligence community, our military, especially those in Special Op's, in this case a brave, skilled group of Navy Seals, our President, and all who worked together... seemlessly... to bring him down.

A footnote.

How we got here

2011-05-01T11:33:00.002-04:00

Informative must-read in today's Washington Post about the politics and policies that led to budget deficits and our national debt, from Clinton to Bush to Obama.

Generally, our elected leaders ignored the facts. Facts that predicted the inevitable overwhelming of the federal budget by entitlements. They ignored the warnings of the bubble bursting and the economy crashing, and the inevitable impact on revenues. They decided at a critical moment to reduce taxes instead of using a Clinton-era surplus to pay down the debt. During the two Bush administrations, they approved a stream of more tax cuts. Primarily with borrowed money, Bush and Congress waged two wars, grew the entitlement burden by adding a costly Medicare drug benefit, and spawned a massive new intelligence/homeland security industry in reaction to 9/11. The Obama administration and Congress followed suit with more tax cuts, the latest in December 2010, and approved a massive, complex overhaul of our healthcare system. While I strongly support the effort to expand access and encourage innovation, I'm still unclear about it's capacity to stabilize and ultimately bring down costs.

Interestingly, routine increases in military and discretionary spending account for only 15% of the expanded federal budget, stimulus spending to help kick-start the economy fueled only 6% of the debt, and TARP for the most part will be repaid to the Treasury. But these are the three things that the public thinks are the main problem. Unfortunately, the American people can't move from these misconceptions because they're reinforced by Obama detractors and inadequately explained by his defenders.

Don't get me wrong, though. President Obama is no saint in some of these matters. With his continued support for tax cuts that don't make much sense when you look at these facts. Plus. His exasperating squishiness in setting priorities in domestic policy. His shifting approaches to handling defense, intelligence and security issues. And his reluctance to support the recommendations of his own fiscal and budget reform commission.

As the old saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. And these are pretty damn hard to ignore. Now if only our politicians would be honest with the American people and explain clearly, accurately and repeatedly how we got here. And then show the fiscal discipline that's needed to get us out of this scary fiscal mess. We also have a responsibility as citizens and taxpayers to collect our own facts. This article is a good start. So... thanks to the Washington Post and journalist Lori Montgomery.

From surplus to debt

In 2000, the United States had $3.4 trillion in debt held by the public. Based on policies in place at the time, the Congressional Budget Office projected in 2001 that the country could pay off its debt by the year 2008 and by 2011 have a $2.3 trillion surplus.

link

SOURCES: Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative analysis of CBO data. By Alicia Parlapiano of The Washington Post. Published on April 30, 2011, 7:00 p.m.

A school reform story. Are we losing something precious and fundamental?

2011-04-22T11:22:00.002-04:00

A huge thank you to the writer of the blog, An Urban Teacher's Education, for this post. Shares this story from This American Life, narrated by the great Ira Glass of NPR, about a Chicago public school, Washington Irving Elementary School, that led its own education reforms. The story is in two chapters. One in 1994 when things were going phenomenally well. And then. 2004 when everything was unraveling.

I took notes as I listened...but please listen to the story yourself. I lasts for just under an hour.

1994.

In Cathy La Luz's classroom. Building a team. Encouraging ideas. Setting higher standards than the school board, the rest of the school district. Relaxed, dedicated personalities leading engaged students to love learning, building a community, a family. Active lessons. Projects. Lots of movement, independent actions, discussions. Conversation. Prodding stragglers to work harder to keep up, and be comfortable asking for help. Learning how to be pro-active, taking responsibility for themselves. Getting involved in the process. Talking about their own insights. Being intuitive to where the students were going with an idea about a book, a process to learn a math principle. Being flexible. Responsive. Ending the day with a song. Laughter. An intoxicating energy. Caring about each other. Looking forward to the next day. A principal supporting such teaching and learning. Teachers making decisions together. Creating their own innovations and supporting each other to go higher, higher. For the kids.

2004

The principal who led dynamic change retires. Her mentored administrator takes over. A grant to purchase eyeglasses for students who need them. Still on a solid path.

But then...slowly, but surely, their own reforms are dismantled. The energy slowly dies.

The report cards they had developed were replaced with a standard district report card. Theirs: very individual, in depth review of each student's progress. A tougher report card replaced with a more vague one with lower standards. For the sake of uniformity. Three parent conferences per year that build bonds with the parent. Guide them to understand how to help hold their kids accountable for their own work. A new rule to limit parent conferences to one per year. Less parent involvement.

Another principal. Gets off on the wrong foot. Asks teachers to turn in uniform lesson plans. A district requirement that's linked to classroom observation rules. Before, teachers had been able to decide things more democratically and keep track of their approaches, their progress in an individual way. State standards that were to be covered each day have to be written on the blackboard. Understanding this kind of direction was needed for less skilled, less experienced teachers in other schools, the teachers at Washington Irving feel they are being asked to go backward instead of forward. A more experienced principal may have been able to get waivers or know how to work around these rules, but this inexperienced principal is more comfortable following them by the book.

The teaching community, the family starts to weaken. They become a different group of people. Disheartened. Accustomed to making decisions together and reaching consensus. The required busywork, paperwork begins to take its toll until teachers start to lose their drive. Cathy La Luz, who was so amazing in 1994 felt her passion, her love of teaching slip away. She speaks, choking back tears. Can't go along with those who tell her to roll with the punches. Close your door and just teach. But she knows that she can't do that because of the burden of so many rules, standards and requirements. She writes a letter to administrators. Shares the belief that uniformity is killing what they know works. And she contemplates leaving the profession over the summer. She stays, but feels in the fall that it's become...us against them. And is looking at options. (Not sure where she is now. Seven years later. I hope she's still teaching. )

Words from Ira---We send our teachers contradictory messages. We tell teachers they are professionals but then we tell them they are workers. We say there should be a balance between standards and autonomy. Then we fight about where to draw the line. People at the top set the goals. Those in the classroom make it happen. In large systems, it's easier to make everyone do the same thing. Another example, the Best Practices High School. All but a few very good teachers left because of a similar dismantling of teacher-led innovations. Lost their democratic process. And then their passion.

This was when now-Secretary of Education Arne Duncan was in charge of Chicago Public Schools. He is interviewed by Ira who says that successful schools with their own innovations should be able to maintain their independence and even be models for the rest of the district. But...but...Cathy La Luz, who wrote the letter to the administration, including Mr. Duncan, received a response saying how important uniformity was so that they could compare apples to apples.

Ira ends saying that he is still hopeful. But wonders if schools like Washington Irving will just sink again. It's an inner-city school. Not a magnet or a fancy charter school. A neighborhood school trying to serve well the students that move in and out of the community. Being asked to follow standards, rules and regulations so that they can be put into a data system to determine success or failure by others who don't know the community, its families, its teachers, its school culture.

I can't imagine it's much different now. Maybe. I was afraid to "google" it. And so I didn't.

I think a lot about these things. In reflection. As a school board member, did I balance the need for uniformity with the need for autonomy? Did I understand the need for democratic decision-making in schools where the bulk of the teachers were dynamic, innovative, passionate? Did I think enough about the the kinds of policies needed to build that kind of staff in all schools? I like to think I did. I hope I did. I was inexperienced in the politics and policy-making, but feel that I did my best and tried to keep an open mind and heart for what's really important.

But, at least speaking for myself, I know the thin line you have to walk when you sit on the school board or serve as a superintendent in this reform era. The pressures from the state and the fed's to comply with standards, rules, regulations and mandates. Even when they are not properly funded. That it all forces you to create uniformity. Especially now that test scores and data rule everything. And the pressures from state and local politicians, business leaders, editorial boards... who want to know mainly about the scores, the data, the school "grades." They want answers to questions like...How many charter schools have you approved? Why are you preparing so many students for higher education? Why are you complaining about unfunded mandates, you must be inefficient with what we send you... And. And. And. Unfortunately, too, are the pressures from parents who want their kids to be given preference over others, and don't understand the balancing act that is in play all the time. All these competing forces. Telling school boards, superintendents, principals, teachers, students....what to do and how to do it. They. Know. Better. Making it a kind of war, so to speak. Taking sides. An overpowering. Of course, there are plenty of parents, local leaders, and even other politicians who are supportive, rational, unselfish. Who fortunately provide sustenance in what has become an enormously tough political environment. And visits to schools where you see the bright faces of kids, and the tireless, creative work of teachers. Then you're reminded of what's important. And how essential it is to listen and learn from those who work with children every day. Understand the impacts of policies and seek the best, most sensible path.

I wrote yesterday about possible common ground as federal No Child Left Behind legislation is reauthorized. I still think there is. There must be, in fact. I believe. And I cling to hope. I feel I have to. And I know that I am not alone. When I listen to a story like this one. A real one. Over a decade. I wonder if we are losing our grasp of something precious. The dynamic human experience of caring, smart, creative adults building a long-term relationship with a community of young people. And other adults supporting those adults. And other adults supporting those kids. To discover, explore, unwind and put back together this messy, wonderful world we live in. Nurturing. Challenging. Preparing. Inspiring. Empowering. All of them. Together.

It seems the Arne Duncan camp of reformers now want to make it harder to achieve. Not easier. And not necessarily together.

But, there is a better way. We know that. Instinctively. Intuitively. Because teaching and learning are such human endeavors. The most human endeavors on the planet. Washington Irving Elementary School and Cathy La Luz showed us how. And I know plenty of teachers who did the same thing for me when I was growing up and for my children as they were growing up. And other adults that supported that process, in and out of school.

We cannot lose this. It is too precious. It is everything.

NCLB reauthorization. Is there common ground?

2011-04-21T11:11:00.021-04:00

The fate of former President George W. Bush's signature education policy, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), is unclear these days. Although crafted through bi-partisan support to much fanfare, and arguably well-intentioned, the way it played out "on the ground" provoked controversy from the start. Too many unreasonable, unrealistic, unfunded mandates. And unpopular with most everyone. Teachers, principals, superintendents, school boards, parents, children's advocates, and politicians on both sides of the aisle. Some never liked it and want more of a revision of its predecessor, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). And although everyone agrees it needs to be fixed, few can agree how best to do it. The disagreements seem to come down to how one defines the role of the federal government in public education. And we all know that's a touchy subject now. But, I still believe there is common ground. If everyone starts genuinely and respectfully listening to one other. And if they acknowledge the complexities and nuances of the politics involved.

In today's Washington Post, columnist George F. Will writes about Rep. John Kline (R-MN) and his new duty as chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. He's a former Marine who wants a "greatly reduced federal footprint in primary and secondary education," and "promises that the current system of "adequate yearly progress" "will not exist when we are done." Believing "highly qualified teacher" should become "highly effective teacher," he also wants to see more charter schools. Mr. Will ends his column with,

There are 14,000 more or less autonomous school districts. Kline knows that at this moment of waning confidence in the federal government, it is strange to assume that leverage from a combination of national tests and national money can efficiently improve the system. And it is stranger still to assume that even if this combination could do so, Washington has the knowledge to move all 14,000 in the right direction. In this Marine from Minnesota, the man and the moment have met.

He thinks it's easy. That it just takes a Marine to get it done. To simply give authority and flexibility back to the local school districts. (And it's worth noting. Personal experience as a school board member. Teachers' unions don't have the universal power Mr. Will states. Great variance across the country. Bigger problems honestly are NCLB and too many reformers who don't understand the complexities of educating our very diverse children in our widely varying school districts.)

But not so fast. Like most everything, it's complicated.

In her blog, Living and Thinking on Education, Joanne Jacobs recently posted this,

Despite the president’s call for action, House Education Chair John Kline won’t “rush” reauthorization, notes Rick Hess on Straight Up. “I’m not going to rush this and do it wrong,” Kline told The Hill on Tuesday. (this was early March)

NEA-friendly Democrats and small-government Republicans could block action in the Senate, predicts Hess, while “House Republicans who promised to dramatically shrink the federal footprint” aren’t “eager to pass an education bill that retains any federal role when it comes to school improvement or teacher effectiveness.”

Nonetheless, editorials still imply that there are easy fixes, such as this recent one in the Charleston (SC) Post and Courier--

The president has asked Congress to fix NCLB in time to reauthorize it by fall. While he opposes the Republican House's relatively modest $5 billion cut in education, he has some key GOP allies on the overriding mission of improving NCLB. House Education Committee Chairman John Kline, R-Minn., said this week that he would work with the administration to craft "targeted, fiscally responsible reforms" to the law -- though he added that the task might not be completed by September.

Congress should get started on this vital assignment. And with school administrators across the nation struggling to make ends meet, the more flexibility a new NCLB can give them, the better.

But the politics are complex and nuanced. There are the moderate Republicans, what's left of them, that is, and moderate Democrats, who generally believe in a healthy balance between federal government and local control. They tend to support common core standards, generally from a what's-good-for the-economy perspective, and think it's important for the federal government to play an active role in alleviating poverty, addressing funding inequities and monitoring discrimination. They are generally supportive of school choice and charter schools, but mainly focus on maintaining the strength of the traditional public school system. But. They've also jumped on the bandwagon for merit pay. And talk way too much about test scores. Risky and controversial, this rhetoric plays well politically with the business crowd, who don't seem to grasp the fact that educating children is really not like running a business. It nonetheless persists.

Interestingly, views of the opposite extremes of the political spectrum are not as clear as one might assume. Those on the right have up until now been the biggest promoter of charter schools and vouchers, and would just as soon eliminate the Department of Education. Some would even like to get rid of what they call "government schools" altogether.

Those on the left continue to support a robust, interventionist federal government, strong teachers' unions, and increased funding to address poverty and funding inequities. But most do not favor NCLB and are uncomfortable with some of President Obama's education policies, like the Race to the Top competitive grant program.

However, there are interesting crossovers where an increasing number of liberals and progressives, especially among civil rights advocates, are supporters of charter schools and even vouchers.

And if you listen carefully, the nascent tea party movement, a loose, ultra-conservative, even libertarian, coalition, isn't necessarily in lockstep with the charter/voucher/ "government-school" crowd. Some are, no doubt, but many are more focused on smaller federal government in general and reinvigorated local control. Very much in line with what local school districts have been clamoring for. Back off, federal government. Give us the flexibility and autonomy to teach the children we know best.

Or listen to newly elected Sen. Michael Bennett (D-CO) whose recent op-ed in the Washington Post laid out proposals for revising NCLB. A former teacher and superintendent, he aligns himself with moderate colleagues, Rep. Kline and the conservative bloc, President Obama and his reform allies, and civil rights groups...all in one fell swoop.

To paraphrase---

He calls for reworking the way teachers are recruited, hired and retained (this primarily means merit pay). Moderate/Conservative. Business-friendly.

"Increase local flexibility by setting fewer, clearer and higher standards and providing teachers and schools the support necessary to meet them." Semi-conservative. Local control. Music to the ears of Rep. Kline and others, and shows support for local school districts in his state.

Calls for more incentives for innovation, and uses the Obama administration's Race to the Top competitive grant program as a prime example. Shows allegiance to the President and his reform agenda.

Recommends action to address the fact that, "We are one of only three countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that invests more money into the most advantaged schools and less money into our least advantaged schools." Liberal. Shows support for urban and rural, high-poverty school districts in his state and the nation.

This last one is compatible with recommendations of civil-rights advocacy organizations who have called for reauthorization, such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, within a broader, more distinct framework--

ESEA should provide support for school districts that seek to promote diversity.
ESEA should hold schools accountable for educating all students by discouraging reliance on exclusionary disciplinary policies and encouraging proactive steps to improve graduation rates.
“Common Resource Standards” should be created to track whether states and districts provide adequate and equitable instructional resources to all student populations.
Development of a pipeline of highly effective teachers, especially for those school districts serving low-income communities of color.
Congress should require that ESEA and other federal laws apply fully to all schools, including alternative schools, charter schools, and preschools.

So, is there common ground? Is broad buy-in possible? Yes and yes.

First. One thing missing in much of the political discourse is worth mentioning. Again. Many...most... teachers, parents and students are weary of the focus on test scores. They instinctively sense and viscerally experience the negative impacts of high-stakes testing. They know that it skews instruction and creates unhealthy learning environments. But, none of the politicians involved in the reauthorization debate have the nerve to say anything about it. Nor do the pundits or editorial writers. They only encourage more talk about test scores as the end-all and be-all, instead of stating the obvious. That they are one tool. Only.

With these thoughts in mind.....I'll take a stab at a workable path---

1. Strengthened local control with flexibility and autonomy. Local communities know their own children best. This is becoming a shared goal of many. Most actually. (With an important caveat. This is where the Department of Justice and all of us come in. Local control cannot become a license to allow what the Wake County (NC) School Board is doing to reverse its highly regarded, highly successful diversity plan. Or allow parochial efforts to reverse course on educational or social progress. Anywhere.)

2. Federal role that is clearly defined and strictly limited. In cooperation and collaboration with states and local communities, focus on funding inequities, justice issues like discrimination and re-segregation, and anti-poverty programs such as early intervention, preschool, technology infrastructure, universal health care and school meals.

3. Common core standards are the states' responsibility to set and monitor. Testing and scoring more for baseline and diagnostic purposes, less high stakes. A means, not an end. Focus on teaching the whole child from kindergarten through 12th grade. Dynamic, rich instruction. All subjects. All disciplines. Preparation for real-life, 21st-century problem solving. In traditional public schools and public charter schools. Universal preschool with whole-child standards a national goal, but the states' responsibility to fund and monitor, with federal assistance in high-poverty school districts.

4. Equal treatment of traditional schools and charter schools, with reasonable, fair accountability standards for both. (Voucher compromises are less clear. I understand the rationale of supporters and criticism of opponents. I frankly think the issue gets too much attention. The parochial and private school network has not the capacity, capability or goal to teach all children, and I tend to agree with critics that vouchers fray the community fabric that public schools have always helped provide. As do charters in some instances, but that's more solvable.)

5. Improving teacher education, recruitment, hiring and retention established as a national goal, but innovations developed at the state and local levels, in close collaboration with schools of education and classroom teachers. Assisted by private-sector partners with a proven track record and authentic goal to improve education, not just benefit financially from a reform agenda. Any merit pay programs should be fair and comprehensive, and set up to promote collaboration, not weaken it. No federal competitive grants. They distort public policy and create new inequities.

It's a start. We can't afford to keep kicking the can down the road, like with so many other important issues. Don't rush but don't take forever either. I am hoping for sound leadership. Those who will listen. Those who will act with reason and compassion. And mutual respect. For the sake of our children's everyday school experience and their future. And the health of the teaching profession and our democratic public school system.

If only President Obama would say this. For the sake of our children and our future.

2011-04-20T15:47:00.000-04:00

All of this boisterous talk....along with the public policies and funding that revolve around it.....plus the private companies benefiting from it....about standardized testing and merit pay....is misleading the American people. Rather than strengthening our public education system, this skewed focus will very likely weaken our ability, in both traditional schools and charter schools, to prepare our children for a complex world.
There are plenty of skeptics and critics, backed up by data and anecdote, who say that merit pay (paying teachers based heavily on student test scores) is a risky path. Increasing the likelihood of "teaching to the test," creating a high-stakes atmosphere that can lead to cheating, sorting kids, and the like. Misleading the public into thinking that schools are businesses that should compete with one another, a la "survival of the fittest," instead of collaborating to meet the enormous diversity of educational needs in our children. Feeding an industry and culture that's built around standardization and testing. Winners and losers. Failures and successes.

I agree with that assessment of risk, but I have even deeper concerns.

Last Sunday, I read an excerpt from the new book, The Corner Office: Indispensable and Unexpected Lessons from CEOs on How to Lead and Succeed by the New York Times columnist Adam Bryant. He has interviewed more than 70 business leaders in his column, The Corner Office. In the book, he describes the qualities these leaders believe are integral to success. A distillation---

The good news: these traits are not genetic. It’s not as if you have to be tall or left-handed. These qualities are developed through attitude, habit and discipline — factors that are within your control. They will make you stand out. They will make you a better employee, manager and leader. They will lift the trajectory of your career and speed your progress. ...

Passionate Curiosity It’s this relentless questioning that leads entrepreneurs to spot new opportunities and helps managers understand the people who work for them, and how to get them to work together effectively. It is no coincidence that more than one executive uttered the same phrase when describing what, ultimately, is the C.E.O.’s job: “I am a student of human nature.”

The C.E.O.’s are not necessarily the smartest people in the room, but they are the best students — the letters could just as easily stand for “chief education officer.” ...

Passionate curiosity, Ms. Minow* said, “is indispensable, no matter what the job is. You want somebody who is just alert and very awake and engaged with the world and wanting to know more.” (*Nell Minow, Corporate Library)

Though chief executives are paid to have answers, their greatest contributions to their organizations may be asking the right questions. They recognize that they can’t have the answer to everything, but they can push their company in new directions and marshal the collective energy of their employees by asking the right questions. ...

Battle-Hardened Confidence Some qualities are easier to spot than others. Passionate curiosity? It’s there for all to see. There’s an energy from people who have it. Other qualities are tougher to discern, especially the ability to handle adversity. Some people embrace adversity, even relish it, and they have a track record of overcoming it. They have battle-hardened confidence. ...

Many C.E.O.’s seem driven by a strong work ethic forged in adversity. As they moved up in organizations, the attitude remained the same — this is my job, and I’m going to own it. Because of that attitude, they are rewarded with more challenges and promotions. ...

Team Smarts At some point, the notion of being a team player became devalued in corporate life. It has been reduced to a truism — I work on a team, therefore I am a team player. It’s a point captured in a cartoon, by Mike Baldwin, in which an interviewer says to a job candidate: “We need a dedicated team player. How are you at toiling in obscurity?”

The most effective executives are more than team players. They understand how teams work and how to get the most out of the group. Just as some people have street smarts, others have team smarts. ...

Companies increasingly operate through ad hoc teams. Team smarts refers to the ability to recognize the players the team needs and how to bring them together around a common goal. ...

“Early on, I was wowed by talent, and I was willing to set aside the idea that this person might not be a team player,” said Susan Lyne, chairman of the Gilt Groupe. “Now, somebody needs to be able to work with people — that’s No. 1 on the list. I need people who are going to be able to build a team, manage a team, recruit well and work well with their peers. The people who truly succeed in business are the ones who actually have figured out how to mobilize people who are not their direct reports.” ...

A Simple Mind-Set “I’d love to teach a course called ‘The Idea,’ ” said Dan Levy, the founder of DailyCandy. com. “Which is, basically, so you want to start a company, how’s it going to work? Let’s figure it out: just a very practical plan, but not a business plan, because I feel like business plans now feel weighty and outdated. It seems, back in the day, that the longer your business plan was, the more promising it was going to be. And now, the shorter your business plan is, the more succinct and to the point it is, the better. You want people to get why your business is going to work pretty quickly.” ...

Fearlessness Are you comfortable being uncomfortable? Do you like situations where there’s no road map or compass? Do you start twitching when things are operating smoothly, and want to shake things up? Are you willing to make surprising career moves to learn new skills? Is discomfort your comfort zone?

In other words, are you fearless?...

“One of the things that I characterize as fearlessness is seeing an opportunity, even though things are not broken,” said Ursula M. Burns, the C.E.O. of Xerox. “Someone will say: ‘Things are good, but I’m going to destabilize them because they can be much better and should be much better. We should change this.’ The easiest thing to do is to just keep it going the way it’s going, especially if it’s not perfect but it’s not broken. But you have to be a little bit ahead of it, and you have to try to fix it well before you have to. Companies get into trouble when they get really complacent, when they settle in and say, ‘O.K., we’re doing O.K. now.’ ” ...

Like the other four keys to success, fearlessness is an attitude, and because attitude is one of the few things over which everyone has complete control, it is a character trait that can be developed. It can be fostered with a simple approach to taking more risks. ...

These five qualities help determine who will be chosen for bigger roles and more responsibility. Those promotions will inevitably bring challenges that require learning through trial and error.

Passionate curiosity, battle-hardened confidence, team smarts, a simple mindset and fearlessness.

Current self-described education reformers, our President among them, are completely wedded to the idea that standardized tests are the foundation of improving education. They say that's not true. But, because they speak mainly of test scores as the measure of a school's success or failure, and demand that teachers be paid for their performance, which is code for students' test scores, they can't honestly say that tests are not driving their agenda. On the other hand, they would read these leadership characteristics and say, "Absolutely that's what we need to be instilling in our children. We, of course, want them to be passionate, curious, confident, risk-taking, clear-headed, fearless lifelong learners, team players and leaders."

Sniffing hypocrisy? I would love to ask them...

Well, Mr. President, or whoever...if that's true, then tell me exactly how more standardized testing will prepare our children to be hungry-to-learn, not-afraid-to-fail young adults?

How will a high-stakes school culture that labels winners and losers, failures and successes, prepare children to work in collaborative teams to accomplish mutual goals? How does it encourage hands-on, experiential learning that's needed to tackle real-life problems in the workplace? How does it encourage dialogue and debate? Flexibility? Open-mindedness? Mutual respect? Thinking outside the box? Experimentation? Creativity? Innovation?

How will using standardized test scores as the primary way of measuring performance encourage teachers to work together to meet the diverse needs of students...class to class, day to day, month to month, year to year?

How do teachers provide the complex, creative instruction that's needed to instill these characteristics in students if a high-stakes culture in reality works against it? And professional development is skewed more toward standardized tests than dynamic learning?

Funny. These reformers fashion themselves as innovative. Unconventional. Unafraid. Undaunted. See themselves as leaders who probably look for these characteristics in the teams that surround them.

But they've decided, or been convinced, that more standardized testing and merit pay based on test scores are the ways we reshape, rejuvenate and "reform" our public school system. It's a simple view, really. That measurement is the problem. Fix the measuring stick. Fix the problem. You know, I'm surprised. Saddened. These are smart people. They wouldn't be solving any other problem in such simplistic ways. So, why can't they see that fiddling with the measuring stick, especially in a way that narrows education, doesn't encourage the kind of instruction and learning that's needed now? That in fact does the very opposite.

Why don't they see this conflict? The whole system is undergoing transformation based on standardized testing and merit pay. If we find out some years down the road that we made a wrong turn, it will be hard to course-correct. Especially since young teachers are being educated and trained in this high-stakes, standardized culture. And it's become clear that the reformers want to clean house. Get rid of many of the more expensive, experienced teachers who would likely be the ones to help turn things around. If. No, when we need to. They know all about teaching the whole child. Too bad the reformers are just giving them lip service and not listening. Listening carefully. Respectfully. You know, like those leaders said...repeating...

Though chief executives are paid to have answers, their greatest contributions to their organizations may be asking the right questions. They recognize that they can’t have the answer to everything, but they can push their company in new directions and marshal the collective energy of their employees by asking the right questions.

In an article in this morning's Washington Post, Admiral Thad Allen, the very-able commander during last year's Gulf disaster, responds to questions about leadership--

...I’m stealing somebody else’s line here, great leaders are great learners. You need to be curious and a lifelong learner, because in a crisis, you’re going to have to know large amounts of information; be a very fast learner, digest and synthesize knowledge, and turn it into action. You’re always going to have to do that in conditions of uncertainty with incomplete information, and it’s always going to be that way. But like anything else, the more you practice, the luckier you get...

and in describing how he motivated the thousands who helped in the clean-up...He said, imagine that everyone you help is a member of your family...

...I told them this for two reasons. If you really do that, and you make a mistake, you will have erred on the side of doing too much, and that’s okay. Also, if you err on the side of doing too much and somebody has a problem with what you did, their problem is not with you, it’s with me, because I gave you the order.

There were people in the room who were openly weeping, and there were collective sighs. Nobody had ever told the workforce in very simple terms what was important, what the priorities were, that leadership cared about them and their mission and that leadership was there to back them.

If only the President would say something like this...

"Our children are our treasure. They need a bright future. For themselves and for all of us. Our country needs them. Teachers, principals, superintendents, school boards---We need you to treat every child in your care as though they were your own flesh and blood. We need them to become passionate, curious, confident, risk-taking, clear-headed, fearless lifelong learners, team players and leaders. Teach creatively. Boldly. Intuitively. Collaboratively. We are here to support you. We can do this. Hold each other accountable. Work together. Claim the future."

If only. If only.

Trouble in paradise

2011-04-18T13:31:00.005-04:00

Children's advocate and former legislator, Dick Batchelor. Truth-telling about the consequences of current politics on the most vulnerable in the state of Florida.

Read this report by the Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, The State of the State: Near the Bottom of the Nation.

Although we have moved away, I care deeply about Florida. It is a beautiful and unique place. We raised our children there. Many friends, a boatload of memories and ties that go deep. In the years before we left, I served on the school board and was involved in various community organizations. What I saw, learned, experienced...all opened my eyes to a reality...of which I'd been unaware.

Florida politicians for at least a decade have avoided the hard work of building a resilient, diverse economy. Through their policies they have weakened the state's public institutions and unraveled what had always been a fragile safety net for the most vulnerable. There is the outward impression of sunny, Palm-fringed beaches, tourist-packed theme parks and a barefoot lifestyle for those who call Florida home. But underneath lies a different place. Persistent poverty, troubling outcomes for children, bottom-level funding for public schools and universities, juvenile justice, services for children, elderly poor, and the mentally ill...Still a shallow economy and more-than-ever threatened ecosystem. And a statehouse full of elected officials who look away from these realities. Avoiding the hard work of reforming fiscal policies and the tax code to enable sustainability and strength. More focused on the short term, helping campaign donors and maintaining political power. Blind to the consequences, deaf to the concerns of many. And now a governor whose philosophy is an inevitable extension of these politics. Who seems naive, stubborn. Some say heartless, reckless. Will it take dire consequences coming true before they realize their folly? I don't know, but I worry from afar. I worry a lot.

For the love of books, thoughts and ideas...for the love of our children.

2011-04-12T11:44:00.005-04:00

It's National Library Week- April 11-16. This year's theme- "Create your own story" --Indeed, we are living one long, beautiful story. Over time. A multitude of characters. Streams of overlapping events and repeating patterns. We change. Oh, boy, do we change. But, we also stay the same. In our basic needs, our natural inclinations. Our shared, deep-down desire to better understand. And strive for a better world. Individually, but mostly together.

We build this story every day. And express it in more ways, in more constancy than we realize. Reading, writing, listening, discussing, debating...and digging down deep into those searching places. Becoming stronger. And maybe better. The same we encourage in our children...all of our children...the stronger, the better, they will also be.

It is then a reassuring fact. Books still have power. To provoke, thrill, agitate. We should not be afraid of those feelings that arise. It is healthy. And we must push back against those who are afraid or want to hide these books and others...this power... away from the eyes and minds of our children, and each other.

This year's list of most challenged books from the American Library Association---

1. And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson Reasons
2. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie
3. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
4.   Crank by Ellen Hopkins
5. The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
6. Lush by Natasha Friend
7. What My Mother Doesn't Know by Sonya Sones
8.   Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich
9.   Revolutionary Voices edited by Amy Sonnie
10. Twilight by Stephenie Meyer

It is also a fact...a tangible, remarkably simple, delicious fact...the more rich words, the more bountiful books, the more ruminating, discussing and debating...that surround a child, the stronger that child will be, not just in school, but in life. IN LIFE. For all of his or her days.

Doesn't it then make more sense...instead of the absurdly huge focus on high-stakes standardized testing (costly) and antagonistic market-based school "reforms" (costly) ...that we focus on ensuring childhood...for all children...is a rich stream of words, books, ideas, thoughts, discussions and debates? Full of hands-on learning, experimenting, searching, finding, sharing? Communities tied together through vibrant, ideas-filled schools and well-funded, well-stocked public libraries? Books in homes and in children's hands? Books in doctors' offices, clinics and community centers? Stories, real stories by real authors, on cereal boxes and the walls of buses and subway cars? Jam poetry sessions and book readings on street corners and public parks? Billboards, television spots and other public, ubiquitous ways that inform, inspire and enrich...to balance out the selling, selling, selling that now proliferates? ...Truly, the possibilities are endless. Simple, rational, authentic.

If we get down to it, we share a universal goal. To have a country that's more than literate in a basic sense. We want a nation that is full of writers, speakers, debaters, thinkers, innovators, inventors...from shore to shore. Good for our society. Good for the economy.

Such a goal is still possible, in spite of much doom and gloom these days. Even in this fast-paced, digital age, the human urge to seek, learn, debate remains eternal. So too the human need to find meaning, seek purpose, build community. The written word, the spoken word are still integral to the human experience. They're expressed in many forms, no doubt. But that is a good thing. All the more ways to satisfy that urge and fulfill that need, and ultimately meet our goal of a hyper-literate society. But to meet that goal will require more than an industry discussion about print vs. digital.

It will require a honing in on our shared priorities as a society, in our communities. That we want our world saturated with dynamic, rich content and a multitude of ways for everyone, especially our children, to talk about it, learn through it, build on it, create from it. That we want our children to be amazing thinkers, not just regimented test-takers. That we understand and appreciate the profit motive in our capitalist economy, but it needs to be balanced with the greater good. That community is everything. Once established, it will mean holding each other accountable to protect those priorities. And holding our elected officials accountable to craft public policies and invest public dollars based on those priorities, and the public and private sectors accountable to serve those priorities with balance and integrity.

But, most policymakers are moving in disturbing ways to standardize and place high stakes on our children's schooling (even at greater cost). They are shifting too much authority to those whose modus operandi is more profit-oriented than community-based (arguably, too, at greater cost). They are chipping away at institutions like libraries that form the fabric of our neighborhoods, towns and cities. Our communities. Our lifeblood.

Read this report on the State of America's Libraries. Canaries in the coal mine. We do have a choice. These are our tax dollars. Our children. This is our country. Our future. We can build a hyper-literate society and maintain strong communities, but we have to really want them. And be willing to stand firm. Stand united.

Don't underestimate Americans' capacity for a dialogue on shared priorities and a sustainable path. Update.

2011-04-06T12:10:00.009-04:00

Here's Congressman Paul Ryan's recent budget proposal and (update) an interesting twist just reported by Politico.

Here's a Morning Joe clip on the budget conundrum-

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's the so-called Gang of Six, a bi-partisan group of Senators who are quietly tackling the deficit and debt problem.

Here are the Simpson-Bowles recommendations (President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, from whom he's distanced himself...unfortunately).

We are on an unsustainable path. Revenues do not match spending. Expectations do not match realities. Our politics seem paralyzed.

It is time. As we meet immediate needs, we need to define together....

What kind of future do we want for our children? Our middle class? Our elderly? Our most vulnerable? Our veterans? Our new arrivals? Our overall physical health? Our food? Our economy? Our financial system? Our democracy? Our public education system? Our contributions to science? Our system of justice? Our civic life? Our culture? Our environment? Our energy resources? Our housing options? Our transportation network? Our relationships with other nations? Our place of leadership in an evolving, turbulent, interconnected world?

Those definitions then answer these questions...

What are our priorities? Our shared values and shared goals? The most productive and effective role of government in the 21st century? The most productive and effective role of the private sector? The best ways to educate, engage and empower the American people in this new age?

All this...in order to fulfill the dream...the necessity... for an America...that is safe, healthy, educated, prosperous, dynamic, principled, compassionate, fair and well-respected. Is that not what we all agree we want for our future?

These answers become the framework for a budget and our public policies. And should be the language of our politics.

Everything then needs to be on the table. Entitlements. Defense. The tax code. Discretionary spending. Corporate welfare. Regulations. Outsourcing. Debt service.

The need for an honest and frank dialogue among Americans and with their elected leaders is critical. Politicians underestimate our capacity for it. We understand that digging deep is hard, complex. And emotional. Compromises will be necessary and disappointments inevitable, but we all will surely lose...especially, our children...if this priority-defining, solution-seeking process is delayed any longer.

I say, Bring it on.

On what we agree. And questions for current education reformers.

2011-04-01T11:28:00.002-04:00

On what we agree...

We value all children.

Our nation's children have equal worth.

Every child deserves and needs a full and dynamic education.

Every child is capable of achieving, succeeding and contributing.

Education is essential on an individual level and for the health of our nation. All are capable of a productive and meaningful life.

Education is the path to college, career, work and citizenship.

Education is the path to an informed, engaged citizenry.

Education is the path to a healthy, vibrant economy.

Education is the path to strong communities, strong states and a strong nation.

Public education is more than a tradition. It is more than bricks and mortar. It is who we are.

Education as a public institution was established early in our nation's history, and continues to be highly valued by its citizens as a way to collectively meet all the goals of productive living, sound citizenship and a strong economy.

Education as a public institution is integral to the idea of what America is. A nation of immigrants that strives toward common goals and shared values. A shared lexicon and common dreams. Together, not apart.

As a nation of immigrants and the dynamism that comes from that, we are dependent upon building and maintaining strong community fabric. Public schools are integral and powerful threads in that fabric.

Community forms the fabric of our lives, our economy and our nation.

Public schools are the strongest threads in that fabric.

Every child is part of a family, a neighborhood, a city or town, a state and the nation.

Public schools are the home-away-from-home places where children of all kinds...

...learn alongside one another;

...learn the meaning and mechanisms of community;

...learn they are part of a bigger whole.

Public schools are the most effective avenues for an educated, informed, interconnected, interdependent citizenry.

So, my questions are......

On current education reform that's built prominently around standardized testing, competition and other business models...

Does it reinforce or weaken our shared values and common dreams?

Does it respond to this very unique American vision?

Does it empower our children, bind them together and prepare them to build and maintain the strong community fabric that's needed in our nation's future?

The answers are important. We cannot afford to get this wrong.

Open letter to President Obama, Secretary Duncan and Senator Lieberman. Cc: Powerful and outspoken merit pay supporters. Update.

2011-03-21T10:50:00.006-04:00

Dear President Obama, Secretary Duncan and Senator Lieberman,

Cc: Outspoken others... like Bill Gates, Jeb Bush, Rick Hess, Eric Hanushek, Michelle Rhee...New York Times and Washington Post editorial boards...some big-city mayors...Republican governors and legislatures...all those who say that merit pay is the new miracle panacea that will transform the American public education system. Merit pay: teachers should be compensated and their contracts renewed by how well their students perform on standardized tests.

Think back on your own education.

Many of you went to elite private schools or relatively affluent public schools.

Who were the teachers who had the most positive impact on your life? On your body of knowledge... thinking ability...love of learning...work ethic...personal values like honesty, citizenship and dependability...and your resourcefulness...self-confidence...capacity to adapt, create and lead???

How would you describe their personalities, skills, styles...their particular wisdom, experiences and specialties???

Did they inspire you? Did they challenge you? Did they believe in you? Did they sometimes seem to know you better than you knew yourself?

How would you quantify what was wonderful and effective in those teachers? How did you do on standardized tests? Were your peers "good" at taking tests, or were they all different? Would you want the "performance" of your favorite teachers measured by those test scores?

Most of you are parents. Now, think of your own children. If you have more than one, aren't they all different in personality...skills...interests...habits? Think of their teachers who have had the most positive impact on them. Ask yourself the same questions about these teachers that you did about the most influential teachers in your life.

Is it not hard to quantify the effectiveness, the influence, the impact...the many intangibles...of these favorite teachers? Imagine yourself in a contemporary classroom where teachers feel increasingly under attack...unfortunately by many of you, in fact (however cloaked in flowery "praise" for teachers it is). Because they hear you speak often about getting rid all those "bad teachers." And see you push thinly studied, controversial policies, like merit pay, that are destined to change the paradigm of teaching. Change the culture of teaching. With much more potential for harm than good. Injecting competition over collaboration, as though classrooms and schools are businesses instead of laboratories, communities, dynamic places to learn, experiment, debate, innovate and explore. Those "good" teachers who may overnight turn into "bad" ones if their students don't perform well enough on standardized tests. According to formulas drawn up far away from the classroom, far away from our widely diverse, constantly changing children. Squeezing them more into boxes than lifelong learners.

These favorite teachers don't want ineffective teachers anymore than you do. They inherit students from them and their work is hurt by peers who can't keep up or are just not suited to this complicated line of work. But they are a minority, and teachers know best through peer review and collaborative processes how to identify them, counsel and mentor them, and if necessary, suggest fair, prompt ways to remove them from their teams. They are teams, you know. Children do not learn in little islands. They are taught be many interconnected teachers and educators...year to year, day to day, class to class.

What teachers probably dislike the most about your merit pay schemes is that there is a frightful narrowness about them. And a remoteness in their underlying premise. They're concerned about the negative impact on the children they serve. The children they know so well. And the disproportionate costs of making more and more tests and great risk of more and more standardization. And undoubtedly deep worry that it would not be hard to change the test-score component of merit pay formulas. 25% to 50% to 75% to 100%. Not hard to envision with the growing number of elected officials who are becoming more blatant in their desire to tear down our democratic public education system. Get rid of collective bargaining to gain complete control. Bring in full choice. Vouchers. A privatized market of schools. Is this really what you want? It is not hyperbole to make such a prediction. You fool yourself if you think it's not possible. It's become increasingly evident that the politics are driving this path more than what's best for children, despite what you say to the contrary.

Now imagine your children, most of whom were or are in private schools (and a few in relatively affluent public schools) being educated by teachers who worry more and more about their students' test scores. Worry that their jobs, their livelihoods...that are increasingly dependent upon these scores. Grow concerned as the culture of the school in which they teach changes. Where teachers are less open about their techniques, their successes. Teachers thinking....I'd like to collaborate with my peers, but you know, they're now my competitors. They say, merit pay will weaken the idea of the team. The community.

Inevitably...Vouchers. A for-profit industry making and scoring the tests. Companies training teachers to train students to take the tests. Moving beyond the original idea of charter schools as incubators for collaborative innovation, management companies running charter schools and called in to "turn around" those "failing" schools. The ones serving impoverished communities. Struggling to match test score gains of the more affluent schools. Those where you all say, poverty doesn't matter. Put the burden on teachers to reverse the condition of poverty. Paradigm shift. The new culture. Attracting more hedge funds, publishing companies, etc. etc. moving in at the thought of profits from testing and privatization. If it's measurable, there's money to be made. Becoming less about children and more about the market.

Is this what you would have wanted when you were in school? Is this what you want for your children? For their children? Your grandchildren? And on and on. Or. Or. Is it okay for the children of others, but not your own? Have you really thought this through? Wondered about unintended consequences? Considered that, while you're convinced that this is the way forward, although I just don't understand why, that...is it possible?...you are being used by those who ultimately want to tear down our democratic public education system? That this is one big fat nail in the coffin they've been building for decades?

Despite what you say, and teachers know this. From their experience. Their knowledge. And if you were to ask, parents instinctively know this, too. And if you dug down deep enough, you might as well. That...this is not the way to long-term success. It is not a healthy, vibrant, all-in-this-together way to educate our children. Why in heaven's name do you think that...Creating scapegoats. Playing the blame game. Dividing and conquering. Fixating on data, formulas, tests. Paying teachers based on scores. Heavy-handed, top-down laws, rules and regulations. Sweepstakes and high stakes for receiving public funds. Why do you believe so strongly that this is the path to success? Other successful countries are focused on (as described beautifully here)...building, supporting, empowering a highly-respected, dynamic teaching profession. And in turn teachers who are building, supporting and empowering the next generation. To love learning. Think creatively. Apply their individual abilities, interests and ambitions with confidence and resourcefulness. Care about their own personal success, but also the whole. The success of the whole community. And. Leaders in these countries are honest about poverty and work to reduce it instead of dismissing it like you all do.

Leaders...Please. Think about the teachers in your life. In your children's lives. What made them or makes them amazing? Aren't many of their qualities hard to quantify and impossible to measure? Your agenda. Your schemes. Are hurting, rather than strengthening, these essential, fundamental intangibles in teaching. One of the most human, dynamic processes on earth. Think about it. Hard. Before it's too late.

Many are waiting, less patiently with each passing day, for you to be more open to criticism and concerns. To open the dialogue. With honesty. With authenticity. With results. We need you to think less about the politics and the power of money that's now entangled in public education. As I wrote recently, this is about the children. It always has been.

Respectfully yours,

Anne Geiger

Caring mother, concerned citizen and former school board member

ps. Update: Thoughtful post on the Shanker Blog. I'm glad more are speaking up about the hazards of standardized testing as a basis for education policy. In that...such tests are helpful in limited ways, especially if used for diagnostic purposes, but not for high stakes consequences as the merit-pay gang is promoting. And while I'm not as accepting of the path we're on (the test-centric one) as the writer, I agree that we must be very careful and very cautious how test data are interpreted and used. There are too many variables in this human-driven endeavor to do otherwise. And we need to be very skeptical of characters like Michelle Rhee who make misleading, inflated claims about test results and push for simplistic policies that employ test scores as their basis. Sage advice for our elected officials and appointed administrators.

It seems that we’re on this test-centric path, at least in the short-term. Things could be worse: Most tests do in fact provide some useful information and, analyzed and interpreted with care, could be used as a partial indicator of how students, teachers, and schools are doing. In addition, better alternatives are difficult –and much more expensive – to come by.

But if we’re going to do this, let’s at least do it correctly. Let’s be careful about how we interpret cross-sectional data, and remember that fluctuations don’t necessarily reflect actual changes, especially in high-mobility districts such as DC. Let’s avoid chalking up test score increases or decreases – whether cross-sectional or longitudinal – to policies that we support or oppose, when such inferences are not directly tested. And, finally, let’s make sure that people, schools, and organizations can’t build or lose their reputations based on testing results. The scores do provide information, but not that kind.

And Mr. President and others, especially those who say unions are the problem...this post by Larry Cuban is definitely worth a read, Praising Teachers while Bashing Them.

Finland, for example, is often held up as the exemplar for the U.S. in achieving effective schools. Look at the respect for, and trust in, teachers that Finns have.

A rebuttal from critics: Hey, Larry, we respect teachers but their unions and contracts are strangling efforts to improve schools. We need to sort out effective from ineffective teachers. All teachers are not good. Also look at Last In, First Out (LIFO) rules in contracts or how few teachers are ever evaluated as poor and fired. Look at Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee and others who wanted to pay stellar teachers top dollars. Nothing happened. So get rid of collectively bargained contracts and good teachers will get paid well. Poor teachers will exit.

Sure.

I know from teaching for nearly 15 years and research that there is much variety among teachers in effectiveness as there is among lawyers, doctors, dentists, accountants, and CEOs. I know that figuring out fair and equitable ways of determining success among these professionals goes far beyond looking at numbers. I also know that the anti-union hostility is anchored in error and ideology.

One only has to contrast right-to-work states with those allowing collective bargaining to determine whether the absence of contracts has improved schools and made them more solvent financially, or, better yet, raised teacher salaries and demonstrated more trust in teachers. They have not.

One only has to look at the dominant metrics that command attention from reform-minded policymakers and business-driven coalitions. Standardized test scores come into play constantly in plans to evaluate and pay teachers. No measures of the student-teacher relationship or what students learn exist beyond the narrow band of knowledge and skills captured by multiple-choice test items. Nothing else counts.....

Anti-union policies are hardly new in the history of schooling but they have been pumped up by both the Bush and Obama administrations and fellow traveling foundations and national business organizations as ways of improving schools through management controlling teaching. This naked bipartisan effort to exert power over teachers comes at a time when rhetoric praises teachers and recognizes their crucial role in the lives of children yet actual policies end up smearing all teachers with the tar-brush of selfishness and self-interest in this unrelenting attack upon teacher unions.

Mr. President...Mr. Duncan...Mr. Lieberman...and all those on the testing and merit-pay bandwagon, are you sure your rhetoric and policies will lead to a stronger, more respected, well-and-fairly compensated teaching profession? Really?

Do most... teachers? educators? education researchers? parents? ...No, actually, they do not. Not by a long shot.

Poverty data reveal our priorities. Challenging ourselves and our leaders. Update.

2011-03-17T12:36:00.011-04:00

* Children living in poverty in the United States from the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. Which children have trouble in school, especially in this time of high-stakes standardized testing? Those who live in poverty. And we want teachers alone to reverse conditions of poverty? (And then punish them if they don't.) Not fair. Not reasonable. Not possible. Not good for teachers. Not good for children. Not good for society.

Children Under 18 Living in Poverty, 2008
Category	Number (in thousands)	Percent
All children under 18	15, 451	20.7
White only, non-Hispanic	4, 850	11.9
Black	4,480	35.4
Hispanic	5,610	33.1
Asian	531	13.3

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009, Report P60, n. 238, Table B-2, pp. 62-7.

* Basic Needs Calculator from the National Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia University. This calculates minimum income to meet basic needs (rent and utilities, food, center-based child care expenses, employer-provided health insurance premiums, out-of-pocket medical costs, transportation, other living expenses like clothing, school supplies, etc., debt, payroll taxes and income taxes, where applicable.) Does this not show how extremely difficult it is for these families to get ahead no matter where they live?

Examples: (I've chosen cities with which I'm most familiar. First rounded figure is minimum annual income for a single-parent household with two young children; second is for a two-parent household with two young children.)

Orlando, Florida $40,000 (232% of federal poverty level; $19 minimum hourly rate)
                              $44,000 (214% of federal poverty level; $11 minimum hourly rate/parent)

Boston, Massachusetts $46,000 (250%; $22)
   $49,000 (221%; $12)

Syracuse, New York      $45,500 (259%; $22)
                                       $50,000 (236%; $12)

Houston, Texas              $46,000 (263%; $22)
                                       $51,000 (239%; $12)

* Orshansky Poverty Thresholds, developed by economist Mollie Orshansky in the 1960's, are still used to measure income needed to maintain an basic standard of living in the United States. The measure is used for macroeconomic statistical purposes. (More discrete guidelines are used by various public agencies to determine eligibility for government assistance.) Poverty thresholds are disputed by conservatives because they don't include non-cash government assistance or help from charitable sources. Many others criticize them, saying that, while they are adjusted for inflation, they exclude many expenses considered necessary for participation in contemporary society, such as car ownership, cable TV, cell phones, etc. Despite the work of various task forces and commissions, Congress and the White House have made little progress toward updating it. Since no lawmaker or President that I can recall ever mentions it, I would guess most Americans don't know that the government is using such an outdated measure.

* The Institute for Research on Poverty offers good explanations of the poverty thresholds and the eligibility guidelines. On the issue of updating the thresholds--

For example, in September 2008, bills were introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives that call for an improved poverty measure. Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative James McDermott introduced the Measuring American Poverty Act of 2008 in both the Senate and the House. As of April 2009, no action had been taken on either bill.

A new poverty measure would likely be based in large part on the recommendations of a 1992 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel, on the findings of a 2004 Committee on National Statistics workshop to review NAS recommendations, and on subsequent research on alternative poverty measures. For more on federal plans to develop such a measure, visit the Federal Supplemental Poverty Measure page on IRP’s Web site.

This proposal is more of a supplement measure that adds items like tax and work expenses that impact a family's ability to meet basic living needs.

* Ten Important Questions about Child Poverty and Family Economic Hardship (from the National Center for Children in Poverty)--

8. Why is there so much economic hardship in a country as wealthy as the U.S.?

Given its wealth, the U.S. had unusually high rates of child poverty and income inequality, even prior to the current economic downturn. These conditions are not inevitable — they are a function both of the economy and government policy. In the late 1990s, for example, there was a dramatic decline in low-income rates, especially among the least well off families. The economy was strong and federal policy supports for low-wage workers with children — the Earned Income Tax Credit, public health insurance for children, and child care subsidies — were greatly expanded. In the current economic downturn, it is expected that the number of poor children will increase by millions.

Other industrialized nations have lower poverty rates because they seek to prevent hardship by providing assistance to all families. These supports include “child allowances” (typically cash supplements), child care assistance, health coverage, paid family leave, and other supports that help offset the cost of raising children.

But the U.S. takes a different policy approach. Our nation does little to assist low-income working families unless they hit rock bottom. And then, such families are eligible only for means-tested benefits that tend to be highly stigmatized; most families who need help receive little or none. (One notable exception is the federal Earned Income Tax Credit.)

At the same time, middle- and especially upper-income families receive numerous government benefits that help them maintain and improve their standard of living — benefits that are largely unavailable to lower-income families. These include tax-subsidized benefits provided by employers (such as health insurance and retirement accounts), tax breaks for home owners (such as deductions for mortgage interest and tax exclusions for profits from home sales), and other tax preferences that privilege assets over income. Although most people don’t think of these tax breaks as government “benefits,” they cost the federal treasury nearly three times as much as benefits that go to low- to moderate-income families. In addition, middle- and upper-income families reap the majority of benefits from the child tax credit and the child care and dependent tax credit because neither is fully refundable.

In short, high rates of child poverty and income inequality in the U.S. can be reduced, but effective, widespread, and long-lasting change will require shifts in both national policy and the economy.

9. Why should Americans care about family economic hardship?

In addition to the harmful consequences for children, high rates of economic hardship exact a serious toll on the U.S. economy. Economists estimate that child poverty costs the U.S. $500 billion a year in lost productivity in the labor force and spending on health care and the criminal justice system. Each year, child poverty reduces productivity and economic output by about 1.3 percent of GDP.

The experience of severe or chronic economic hardship limits children’s potential and hinders our nation’s ability to compete in the global economy. American students, on average, rank behind students in other industrialized nations, particularly in their understanding of math and science. Analysts warn that America’s ability to compete globally will be severely hindered if many of our children are not as academically prepared as their peers in other nations.

Long-term economic trends are also troubling as they reflect the gradual but steady growth of economic insecurity among middle-income and working families over the last 30 years. Incomes have increased very modestly for all but the highest earners. Stagnant incomes combined with the high cost of basic necessities have made it difficult for families to save, and many middle- and low-income families alike have taken on crippling amounts of debt just to get by.

Research also indicates that economic inequality in America has been on the rise since the 1970s. Income inequality has reached historic levels — the income share of the top 1 percent of earners is at its highest level since 1929. Between 1979 and 2006, real after-tax incomes rose by 256 percent for the top 1 percent of households, compared to 21 percent and 11 percent for households in the middle and bottom fifth (respectively).
Economic mobility — the likelihood of moving from one income group to another — is on the decline in the U.S. Although Americans like to believe that opportunity is equally available to all, some groups find it harder to get ahead than others. Striving African American families have found upward mobility especially difficult to achieve and are far more vulnerable than whites to downward mobility. The wealth gap between blacks and whites — black families have been found to have one-tenth the net worth of white families — is largely responsible.

What all of these trends reveal is that the American Dream is increasingly out of reach for many families. The promise that hard work and determination will be rewarded has become an increasingly empty promise in 21st century America. It is in the best interest of our nation to see that the American Dream, an ideal so fundamental to our collective identity, be restored.

10. What can be done to increase economic security for America's children and families?

A considerable amount of research has been devoted to this question. We know what families need to succeed economically, what parents need to care for and nurture their children, and what children need to develop into healthy, productive adults. The challenge is to translate this research knowledge into workable policy solutions that are appropriate for the U.S.

For families to succeed economically, we need an economy that works for all — one that provides workers with sufficient earnings to provide for a family. Specific policy strategies include strengthening the bargaining power of workers, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. We also need to help workers get the training and education they need to succeed in a changing workforce. Dealing with low wages is necessary but not sufficient. Low- and middle-income families alike need relief from the high costs of health insurance and housing.

As a nation, we also need to make it possible for adults to be both good workers and good parents, which requires greater workplace flexibility and paid time off. Workers need paid sick time, and parents need time off to tend to a sick child or talk to a child’s teacher. Currently, three in four low-wage workers have no paid sick days.

Despite the fact that a child’s earliest years have a profound effect on his or her life trajectory and ultimate ability to succeed, the U.S. remains one of the only industrialized countries that does not provide paid family leave for parents with a new baby. Likewise, child care is largely private in the U.S. — individual parents are left to find individual solutions to a problem faced by all working parents. Low- and middle-income families need more help paying for child care and more assistance in identifying reliable, nurturing care for their children, especially infants and toddlers.

These are only some of the policies needed to reduce economic hardship, strengthen families, and provide a brighter future for today’s — and tomorrow’s — children. With the right leadership, a strong national commitment, and good policy, it’s all possible.

~This quick search revealed to me what I feared. Statistical methods have not changed in over fifty years. And despite numerous hard-working, dedicated agencies and non-profits working to address poverty, resources to triage the symptoms of poverty are either inadequate, counterproductive or come in only when circumstances are dire. At the same time, there isn't enough focus by our policymakers on growing income inequality, the root causes of poverty, and the reasons why some communities remain chronically impoverished. Much of this, I think, is related to our decades-long political environment that tends to label those who are poor as irresponsible, self-destructive...or worse. It has led many of our elected officials to continue to...avoid redefining the poverty threshold, and some to not even whisper the word "poverty." It has given them permission to put off a national dialogue about our public priorities, even in this "Great Recession" that has exposed our outdated philosophies and approaches. What's needed? Sooner than later? A dialogue. A debate. Then a shift. A collective shift. And a new momentum....to revamp what our government does and what our communities do..the policies, the investments, the actions...to enable steady movement into the middle class. And implant the ability to sustain a middle-class standard of living for as many as possible, in good times and bad...here, there and everywhere.

This will not just involve a math exercise to redefine poverty thresholds. It will involve tough political battles over budget reform, fiscal reform, tax reform. (To repeat as I always do...."reform" means strengthening what works and fixing what doesn't; it doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater nor wheeling little, easy-to-swallow ideas around to supposedly solve a problem.) None of this will be painless or simple, for sure. But if we need to shift our priorities to build and sustain a stronger, bigger middle class...If we want to match other industrialized countries in areas like parental leave, affordable, universal health care, and high-quality preschool for all children...And have enough to also help developing countries with crushing rates of poverty, as we should....Then we need to use our resources wisely, strategically...and change the privileged status of some who have grown accustomed to it.

It's difficult for us sometimes, this freedom-loving, capitalism-driven nation, to recognize that we're all in this together. But, it's true. We are. The enormous tragedy unfolding in Japan, the heart-breaking struggles in the Middle East...I could go on...and close to home, our own economic malaise...These moments, these crises...show us that when it comes down to it.....We are all human. We need to look out for each other. Reach out. Lift up. Support. Empower. Through thick and thin.

After all, why are we here on this earth anyway...if not for each other?

Update: For an historical review of social policies, and related politics, post-New Deal to the present day, that involve poverty in this country--

Michael Harrington's book, published in 1963, The Other America: Poverty in the United States and J.K. Galbraith's The Affluent Society, both inspired the era of the "Great Society." Twenty years later, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980, 10th Anniversary Editionby Charles Murray, a harsh critique of the Great Society, helped usher in the political shift that led to welfare reform in 1996. Its sentiments still fuel political rhetoric and public policy involving poverty. The 1983 A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform : a report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education, that seems to become more controversial with each passing year, still has huge impact on education policy. It led to the No Child Left Behind Act and the current age of "accountability" built on standards and testing, plus "school choice" pushed at first by conservatives and libertarians, but now fully embraced by President Obama, a Democrat, and some civil rights leaders.

So while our politicians still cling to an old paradigm, Americans are wrestling with a new set of facts. Poverty is still very much with us, and seems more entrenched than ever. Especially as it becomes a problem in the suburbs and exurbs, a result of people gravitating there for less expensive housing, but now where many are stuck without jobs or public transportation, some even without a home. Americans in general are unsettled by the shaky instability of the middle class, due to growing income, health, housing and retirement insecurity. And an economy that seems incapable of producing enough good-paying jobs. Many wonder, with no small degree of anger, why policymakers and the most visible, vocal scholars and pundits ignored the signs that pointed to this new reality. They wonder why they dismissed authors like Kevin Phillips, who as early as 1994 described the decline of the middle class in Boiling Point: Democrats, Republicans, and the Decline of Middle-Class Prosperity. They wonder why policymakers maintain certain assumptions and political sentiments, and support policies, that ensure this reality lingers. One theory is that their indebtedness to powerful lobbyists and deep-pocketed campaign donors has put them in a box and they can't seem to find a door out, or that maybe they like the security of that box.

There has been a stream of books and reports about this issue since the Great Recession began, but I would also recommend listening to this NPR broadcast from October 2010, Reconsidering the Culture of Poverty. It's a good dialogue about the complexities and difficulties in addressing poverty. No real answers, but a provocative and insightful look nonetheless.

Lessons from Florida. One-party state. Children living in poverty. Frayed society in paradise. Update.

2011-03-10T11:04:00.011-05:00

Sunday night...probably too few...Americans watched CBS' 60 Minutes story on the growing number of homeless children in Seminole County, Florida. It was heartbreaking. I was heartbroken. I know this community. I know these children. It is a metaphor for growing poverty among children in the United States. Poverty among children...our children...in this country...is expected to reach 25%. This country of ours. This one of boundless hopes, boundless dreams, boundless opportunities.

25%. 25%. 25%. 25%. 25%.

How many times does it need to be repeated before our elected leaders, business leaders, community leaders....all of us...say enough. And do something about it. Will those elected to serve the collective needs of our nation...our state...our communities...finally...let the word...poverty...slip from their lips? Why is this tolerated? Do we not care enough? Is it too hard? Do some of us blame those who suffer? Do we think if we look away it's not there? Are our leaders feckless, uncaring, or is is too hard for them, too? Or are they afraid they will be seen as "bleeding hearts" who don't talk enough about bootstraps and personal responsibility?

This is not an anomaly. It's been exacerbated by the "Great Recession," but it's been with us for some years now. I know Seminole County. I lived for nineteen years in the adjacent county, Orange County, the home of Florida's famous theme parks. Vacation destination of millions, while a low-wage economy and weak society grew in its shadows. A beautiful, balmy paradise on postcards, but in truth a fragile, tender place. Its environment. Its people. Its future.

I saw Florida politics evolve over those nineteen years. At first, it was more of a thoughtful place. With its problems and weaknesses, no doubt. But more real governing, more bipartisanship, more respect for the fragile places and people of the state. But, it all started to change when Florida Republicans made a no-tax pledge their modus operandi and government-is-bad their mantra. They worked hard to scare voters and sway minds. And soon it was a one-party state. (Take notice, Wisconsin and other states run by political "monopolies" of this sort.) Now it seems that short-term political points hold sway over long-term public investments. Where...prosleytizing, marginalizing, underfunding, unfunding, outsourcing, privatizing are more the norm. Where outcomes for children are in decline. Where choices are made one after the other to avoid anything that looks like a tax, while ignoring signs that the economic, social and environmental fabric is fraying.

Where public education policy shifted schooling heavily...heavily... toward high-stakes standardized testing and school choice. Instead of fully meeting the complex educational needs of children, enabling a rich curriculum and building a highly-respected, collaborative teaching profession. All of that costs more, you know. And doesn't so easily feed a burgeoning testing and school choice industry. Nor a conservative political ideology. Where Article IX, section 1 of the Florida Constitution states that the legislature has one paramount duty: "to adequately fund a safe, efficient, uniform, high quality system of free public education." But, with each passing year, a legislature that shifts its responsibility to fund public schools to local communities. In a maneuver to claim the mantle that they don't raise taxes, it's those local counties and school boards that do. And blaming schools...and teachers... if their students don't get high test scores, even as poverty keeps rising among the children who try to think, to learn...to survive...every day.

Where there is a lot of talk about creating a more diversified economy and "serving all Floridians," but where low-wage industries keep tight control over public policy and the politics. With whom many part-timers are happy to align. Many giving to charities and non-profits that try to plug the holes, mend the frays but, at the same time, making sure the tax structure and politics more benefit their bottom line and unhampered lifestyle than truly, truly building a strong economy and healthy society for... everyone.

My experience on the school board in Orange County and work in public advocacy showed me this dark side to Florida's one-party politics. (The poverty rate among children in our school district was over 50%, in some schools 95% or more. One of the elementary schools in my district served a large number of homeless children, depending greatly on private dollars and volunteers to serve these hurting kids. It was this way six years ago. Must be even higher now. Seminole County is Orange's smaller, more-wealthy neighbor, relatively speaking. But, they had their dark corners, too, as the 60 Minutes news story revealed. Watch it below. )

I came to office with many of these conservative politicians whispering in my ear and I thought some of their arguments were worthwhile at first. At first. But then as I learned the realities, the truths...the bare-knuckle politics, I became more and more disillusioned, and lost trust in many of them. Not all, for sure, because there are those who are more reasonable, more thoughtful, more genuinely dedicated to the greater good and do have sound ideas. Most grew disappointed in me as I distanced myself more and more from them, and started to question, challenge, criticize. It's as though they all, to one degree or another, get indoctrinated to speak in party-line rhetoric and become indifferent to another point of view or others' real-life concerns.

Now, at a distance, I grow angry and alarmed as these politics go at full throttle under newly-elected Governor Rick Scott. This is the logical next step of former Governor Jeb Bush's policies and politics. Is this what he had in mind? Caveat emptor? Here a green very-wealthy governor whose former company was fined for Medicare fraud. Who barely hides his distaste for government. Cut it to the bone. Into the bone. Relishing the pain and commanding from on high. Would like to eliminate public education as we know it. Cut taxes until they disappear. And somehow with a magic wand create thousands of jobs, remove the need for public services, create a... paradise???

I know many Floridians, in the public and private sector, who work tirelessly every day to protect and serve children, the sick, the mentally ill, the homeless, the elderly...all of those in need.... teaching them, supporting them, nurturing them....Who call attention to persistent poverty, fight against old prejudices, challenge everyone to care about their neighbors, advocate for adequate funding and sound policies for a strong economy, healthy society...and try...try...to convince elected officials in Tallahassee to govern.To govern. The voices include those involved in law enforcement and the courts who worry about the strength and capabilities of these institutions as elected officials like Governor Scott make promises about tax cuts but say little about strengthening and stabilizing necessary public services. I know all of these Floridians will continue doing what they do. Because they believe in their state. Love it. And its people. But I also know they're concerned--alarmed, angry--- perhaps more than they've ever been before.

I hope they will prevail. There are too many who are hurting. There is...too...much...at stake. To give up...now. It is time.

Awake the State. Rallies held throughout Florida on Tuesday. Shouting long and loud. I join them, even if in cyberspace. But it will take all of us. In any way available. And...isn't that how the revolutionaries in Egypt expressed their concerns, their alarm, their anger? Using every way they could. Shouting, enough is enough.

Update: For those who maybe won't read the comments. A reader pointed out that I should have mentioned the rise in NAEP scores, especially among minority children. Yes, he's right. Here are my two responses:

Yes. It is worth mentioning. I should have mentioned NAEP gains, and other accomplishments in what can be a pretty hostile environment. It's because so many are consummate professionals and have chosen education as a public service, no matter what the politics may be. I know how hard the schools and teachers are working to improve achievement for all students, increasing rigor, widening access to advanced coursework, etc. Working hard with less. But I also know the impacts of chronic poverty, steady declines in funding, attack-the-teachers/anti-government/charters-are-always-better/top-down politics. It all affects the learning environment, hamstrings local governance and harms the sense of shared purpose. And the reluctance of the legislature to fully tackle finance and tax reform, for equity, adequacy and stability...is more than frustrating. If NAEP scores are the measure, imagine how high they would go without such obstacles.

and

I don't know if you've been in Florida classrooms lately, but there is great testing fatigue, especially in low-income, majority-minority schools. Yes, they have more rigorous curriculum, stronger faculty, stronger administrators, and are rightly proud of their accomplishments. But, despite what the testing/choice reformers like to say, a lot of these improvements arose more from education professionals taking their work to the next level, just as in any field or industry, more than politicians or pundits telling them what to do.

Is the narrowing of the achievement gap because of or in spite of testing/choice policies? I think it's a combination, but mainly in spite of. Because teachers want their students to succeed so much. When the hand is dealt them that the success of their students, their schools....teachers themselves...are measured by test scores, they will do what they have to do so that none are labeled as "failing." But at what point does it become unhealthy and unproductive? At what point does testing fatigue become too much? At what point do test scores flatten, and we wonder what do we do next? At what point will we realize that yes, poverty shouldn't be an excuse, but is still a reason, a condition, that teachers cannot fully overcome?

That's really my main point. How can we as a nation tolerate such high levels of poverty in the lives of our children?

Why won't you listen, President Obama? This is about the kids. It always has been. Update.

2011-03-08T15:46:00.029-05:00

I'm tired of being diplomatic. Many of our elected leaders, including our President, need to be called out. Many of their words and education "reform" policies are doing harm to our public schools, our children, our teachers and...eventually...our society, our democracy, our economy. They are....

National Center for Children in Poverty

Ignoring poverty. Poverty is consciously dismissed, even ignored, by elected officials these days. It's expected that the percentage of children living in poverty may rise to 25%. 25%!!! This is in a country that promotes itself as the land of promise and opportunity. As a model for the world. They say that teachers should be able to overcome all conditions of poverty by just being "better teachers." An unfair and unrealistic command. To continue to insufficiently triage the most obvious symptoms of poverty, especially in our nation's cities and rural counties, and not aggressively, strategically go after the root causes, ....is short-sighted and, frankly, ...unconscionable. This should be the number one priority, and it's scarcely mentioned by any of them.

Accepting segregation. Children who live in poverty in many of our nation's cities and in rural counties (most particularly in the South), are by and large separated from the greater society and their more affluent peers. Disproportionately large percentages of children of color and limited English proficiency live in poverty. Again, in a country that's supposed to be the model for the world. The testing culture growing in our public schools most acutely affects these children. The push for charter schools in too many cities is leading to sorting children, and cementing segregation.

Turning a deaf ear to critics. A powerful, media-savvy group of intellectual, ideological, political, celebrity and social elites, having little to no classroom experience and limited exposure to impoverished communities, are locking arms around their education "reform" agenda. It's built around standardized testing, school choice and privatization. They believe they are right and bristle when their agenda is criticized. Their shared talking points: Poverty doesn't matter. Segregation doesn't matter. Class size doesn't matter. Experience, perspectives and concerns of teachers, parents and students don't matter. We know best.

Many of them wrongly say that critics who don't agree with them don't care about children. They...strong word, sorry, they lie...and know it....(it's politics, you know)...when they say critics don't want achievement to be measured. It's just another way to marginalize and delegitimize their critics.

This is the truth. Critics rightly say that while standardized testing started out on a sensible level, it has now become an end in itself instead of one (of various, comprehensive) means to assess, diagnose and improve. It's redefining our public education system to train children to take tests more than nurturing them into lifelong learners. And, with great risk, is poised to begin distinguishing teachers "good" from "bad."

Critics also say what the elites will not admit, that too much of this choice and competition is leading to sorting and segregating our children, and runs contrary to collaboration, one of the most fundamental ways to meet the educational needs of all children in a school or community. They call out the current hypocrisy. While saying we should "support and respect" teachers, the elites promote an agenda that seems more inclined to label teachers, even demoralize them. It really makes no sense. How do you build up a great teaching profession while you tear it down? They've made such deep criticisms of the public education system and such big promises, they now risk losing face if they back down. But at what cost?

Looking away as the chickens come home to roost. Building on the philosophy of the late economist, Milton Friedman, libertarians and free-market advocates imagined a public education "system" where all families had complete choice of schooling for their children. These "consumers," like shopping for groceries, will find the best place for their children. All children will be miraculously well educated by virtue of this free market. At its root, the elites' education reform agenda is built on this ideology.

What is really happening as this testing-and-market-based agenda becomes more embedded?

85% of our children are in traditional public schools. 2.5% in public charter schools. 2.5 % are homeschooled. 5 10% in private schools.

1- There is not capacity, capability, or even desire, in private and parochial schools or public charter schools to teach ALL children. (The "choice" to home-school will never rise much higher than it is today.) The vast majority of children who have special needs, are not English-proficient, live in poverty and/or have discipline records will remain in traditional public schools. And, let's be honest, families in those "choice" schools will never be comfortable having "too many" of "those other kids" in their schools.

2- A competitive market of schools that's endorsed by public policy and funded through public dollars inevitably damages "community," and fractures the idea of "shared common good," two of our public school system's greatest strengths. This is very evident in Chicago, New York and Washington, D.C.

3- Unintended consequences? Perhaps they don't care. Or maybe it's conscious denial. Troubling either way.

Since standardized testing now drives much of the policy-making, test scores have become the common denominator in labeling schools "good" vs. "bad." They're inevitably the way schools advertise themselves and families decide "with their feet" the "better" choice. (And the way politicians define "success" in schools in their districts, business organizations define "good schools" to attract new industries, and real estate agents define "good neighborhoods" to their clients.)

Mr. Friedman's model voucher program sent low-income students to parochial schools. On the whole, they did well. But, this was before standardized testing became so entrenched. Would he find it acceptable that parochial and private schools do not have a test-based culture, but the public schools, traditional and charter, now do? Knowing that parochial or private schools will never be able to or want to teach all children?

Did he imagine lotteries, with weeping children and hand-wringing parents? And portrayed on film, no less. That school buildings would be carved up into chaotic, competing "choices," as they are in New York? That transportation costs, parental contracts, application processes, discipline records, language difficulties, etc. would become barriers to making "choices?" That in school districts with significant "markets," there's increased anxiety and resentment among families and fractured sense of community? In neighborhoods that are already fragile? A new kind of segregation within neighborhoods that are already isolated from their greater communities? Resources thinly spread between traditional and charter public schools, with the charters having more access to private patronage through the elites who prefer them? Is that really good for children and society?

Or...the heavy-handed, opaque, non-educator administrations that characterize themselves as necessary. Plus those statehouses, and aggressive U.S. Department of Education, that lean toward the top-down and disruptive. All to implant the "market" and testing regimen. Weakening the democratic foundations of our public schools.

Or...that data collection and a testing industry would play such large roles in this "market," and inevitably drive the curriculum and learning environment in all public "choices," traditional and charter?

Or...that top-rated private schools have not become big "players" in this "market?" They're happy with their niche, and certainly don't want to be pulled into the intensifying test-and-measure culture. So while some have opened their doors through scholarships and a voucher here or there, they remain exclusive. Many of the elite, and the politicians aligned with them, including President Obama, prefer these schools for their own children. And it's not hard to figure out why. They teach the whole child.

Dividing the pie. While, there is a place for the private sector in public education, like in the areas of operations, facilities and technology, public policies and spending that are built substantially around a testing-and-market-based agenda are attracting a burgeoning for-profit industry. It creates, administers and scores the tests. It provides the materials and professional development needed to train teachers to prepare students to take the tests. When scores fall in the traditional public schools, then there's demand (real or political) for "choices" or "intervention." Thus, another industry to create, manage (and increasingly, franchise) public charter schools and bring in private managers to "turn around" those "failing" schools. We shouldn't be surprised if we continue spending more and more on public education but in skewed, counterproductive ways, since it's increasingly feeding these two industries, no doubt with a growing and active lobby corps.

Last week, President Obama was on stage with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and today with Bill Gates, two very powerful members of the education reform elite. If public venues can be translated, the President is making a statement. He is aligning himself with them, while saying if you don't join them you don't care enough about children or our future.

What's more disconcerting is that the President, and some so-called progressive think tanks (also card-carrying members of this elite group), are criticizing actions of Republican governors to limit or abolish collective bargaining rights of public employees, including teachers. But this strikes me as extremely disingenuous, since those actions are a logical next step in the education reform agenda that they so aggressively promote. So what should we call this now? The Bush/Obama/Elite education reform agenda?

It has occurred to me, too, that the enormous number of immigrant families who have come to the United States in recent years, many of whom remember great inequities in their countries of origin, are now forming their perceptions of our public school system. They see a country that no longer values diversity in its public schools, has surprising tolerance for poverty among children and places competition over collaboration in how children are educated. They see a media industry obsessed with the scary myths of rampant "bad teachers" and "failing schools" that the elite repeatedly promote. They see this elite, up on high, swooping down on schools and communities to "save" children with their reform agenda. Whom should they believe?

Dismissing poverty. Dismissing segregation. Dismissing critics. Dismissing deep concerns. Dismissing the appearance of an elite agenda. Dismissing unintended consequences. Dismissing realities. Dismissing the loss of collaboration. Dismissing distorted priorities that arise through privatization. Dismissing harm and division.

Does this mentality come from living in an echo chamber or mutual admiration society? Is it the money? Power? Prestige? Or...is it simply a political calculation?

Whatever it is.....they're circling the wagons. So, what do we have to do to get the attention of our elected leaders, the President, to really listen...and respect deep concerns and a different point of view? What will it take for them to be self-critical and introspective about this incredibly important issue?

This is about the kids. It always has been.

Footnote: These books are worth a read-- The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch, who supported the agenda in its earlier days, but now has come full circle to become one its most biting critics.The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein, a polemic, really, that describes the simplistic mindsets, intense politics and consequences of laissez-faire free-market ideology, as promoted by Milton Friedman and others. Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy by the economist Joseph Stiglitz, a bleak view of how the financial market has overtaken our economy, and our politics. It perhaps is no accident that many financial titans and whiz kids are close to President Obama and his administration, and now entangled in this profitable education "reform" agenda.

Update: Not to be repetitive...I add this link about top-ranked Finland's public education system. I recently heard...again... the elite's claim that we could "match" Finland by simply "getting rid of" the "bottom" 5-8% percent of teachers. And do this substantially through the standardized test scores of students. What a simple-minded idea. What an insult to Finland. Their system seems much more democratic than ours is becoming. They utilize little standardized testing, build their schools strongly around community, and reach such profound results through respecting, supporting, empowering and sustaining a strong teaching profession (that's universally unionized, by the way).

Christie, Walker & Scott. Scaring and dividing us is not governing. Update.

2011-03-02T10:53:00.009-05:00

Every day, there's new commentary on two evolving news stories. One, the braggadocio of Republican governors to diminish, even eviscerate, the bargaining rights of public employees. And two, the fall of autocratic governments in the Middle East, as so many dominoes, the revolutionaries saying, enough, enough.

And I keep finding myself making connections between the two.

In a recent post, I encouraged public-sector employees to understand the resentments toward them, and to get ahead of the attacks by contributing more to their pensions and health care benefits to more closely align with private-sector contributions. I challenged top public-sector officials and private-sector executives to look in the mirror and scale back their own excesses and privileges. I asked all of us to scrutinize our whole economic system that's been steadily moving everyone toward a less secure, less stable retirement. And hold our elected officials and employers accountable to address this disquieting future. I'm an optimist by nature, but I grow more fearful that we may not look at all of this rationally or productively. We're just getting more angry with each other, and many of our elected leaders are more inclined to divide and conquer, then unite and mutually prosper. And I don't see any of them clearly explaining the whole picture and history of public-sector employment vs. private-sector employment, nor offering policies and strategies that ensure all Americans have a stable, secure retirement.

(Last night, there was a good discussion about public pensions on the PBS NewsHour; both sides of the argument, facts and some common ground. And, this morning, a great discussion on the Diane Rehm show. It's available on the website. Lots of straight talk...facts about the public sector, why there are bargaining rights, discussion about the Koch brothers who help fund a libertarian, anti-labor agenda, etc. etc.)

(Update: This afternoon, I heard about an article by Daniel DiSalvo in the conservative journal, National Affairs. It lays out the history of public-employee unions and why they should be eliminated. It's worth reading, just to know the academic arguments. However, he doesn't acknowledge how the much-too-often capricious behavior of politicians can affect the stability of the public workplace and the effectiveness and efficiency of government agencies. I saw it firsthand, more times than I can count. Collective bargaining is one way of keeping that in check. The other issue is even deeper. What happens when one political party dominates policy-making and representative government is severely hobbled...both the inevitable result of efforts like these. He doesn't go there. I also saw this firsthand in Florida, essentially now an ideological, one-party system, where other voices, other points of view, other ideas are heavily marginalized.)

Matt Bai's piece in Sunday's New York Times on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's war on teachers' unions made me realize some things. One of the graphics showed what each household would owe if states were forced to pay for unfunded pensions and health care benefits all at once. New Jersey is clearly an outlier in the size of these "unfunded liabilities." It's obvious too many politicians and too many union leaders didn't give an eye to the future as they created an unsustainable set of promises. The other outliers were Connecticut, Alaska and Hawaii. I don't know enough about Alaska and Hawaii to comment (and I'm not going anywhere near Alaska, thank you very much), but I'd guess Connecticut took a similar path. We don't hear much from new Governor Dan Malloy. Their solutions are likely collaborative because he's a Democrat. What's interesting about the graphic is that, while all states have low to moderate challenges in addressing these liabilities primarily because of the recession, it's a false narrative that all are in deep, deep trouble, and so must follow Governor Christie's slash-and-burn approach. It makes you wonder how much of this is politics, and how much is practical governing. I think it's the former, not the latter.

I also learned there are over 600 school districts in New Jersey. 600. I know that the Northeast's school districts (and other regions) are less of a seamless system and more of a patchwork quilt. Highly challenged schools in city centers, healthy comprehensive schools in middle-income suburbs, and small, elite schools in high-income enclaves. It functions during healthy economic times, but there are consequences with so many autonomous districts. But, it's relatively inefficient since there are so many schools, bureaucracies, administrations and school boards. The urban school districts, with their chronic, concentrated poverty, are more dependent on federal dollars and have attracted a flood of outsiders, enticed by the money, politics and power flowing in our current "education reform." Enabling more efficiency and equity, and less segregation of low-income kids, would require changes that most in the suburbs and enclaves wouldn't accept, because they would lose some local control, and jeopardize the human touch in educating their children and close-knit bonds of small districts. I probably wouldn't if I lived in one. But, but... this autonomy means there's less need to worry about the children in other communities and opens the door for politicians like Gov. Christie, in tough economic times, to push a draconian, divisive agenda. He gives this more complex reality short shrift, probably because more complex solutions to reach fiscal health and equity are hard, logistically and politically. It's easier to find a villain, a scapegoat...to blame, to punish, to squeeze.

(To show how the conditions, circumstances, politics and players vary state to state, as an example...one I know the best. With a population of 18.8 million, Florida has 67 countywide school districts. New Jersey's population is 8.8 million. Florida's public school system is much more efficient. 67 school boards, superintendents and bureaucracies instead of 600. Since they're countywide, school boards and communities must think about education for all students, not just some. Years ago, Florida tackled the equitable funding issue by instituting the Florida Education Finance Program-FEFP-that's held up as a model. Now, there are other not-so-great issues in Florida, such as the overall inadequacy of funding (which leads to very large schools, and, lately, very painful cuts), a legislature prone to meddling in local policy-making and low-wage, low-tax economy that works against scholarship and a high quality of life. And, for the past decade or so, Florida's Republicans have embedded a political atmosphere that's quite hostile to public education, and to government in general. Now, Florida's new governor, Rick Scott, has put that into overdrive.)

It's worth mentioning, too, that Gov. Christie is similar to other politicians who were completely educated, and educate their own children, outside the public education system. Both my children attended public schools for most of their education, but briefly attended private schools along the way. What I learned was that many parents and educators in private schools, and their children as a result, develop a mentality that public schools are dangerous, bureaucratic and ineffective. I also noticed this mentality in some of the charter schools in our district. It's not expressed blatantly, but surfaces often in conversations. I would be surprised if Gov. Christie didn't have a similar mentality. It's one thing when it's in conversation, but something else entirely when it drives public policy.

What I see unfolding is that a politician like Governor Christie, faced with New Jersey's formidable challenges, creates an agenda to attack public-employee unions and vilify government that like-minded politicians, and their avid supporters, eagerly adopt. Especially if headlines, cable news invites and campaign cash are involved. Political strategists foster it because it's catnip for voters who are employed in the private sector, have no children in public schools, or are already retired...and scared about the future. Florida's Scott, no wallflower himself, shows no love for government or public schools either, and is eagerly taking pages out of the Christie playbook.

Gov. Scott is on a mission to remove corporate income tax (already among the lowest rates in the country; Florida's constitution prohibits personal income tax; the state is substantially dependent upon sales tax). He's brought in a development lawyer to run the land management agency. He shows little interest in adequately funding law enforcement and the courts, or services for children, elderly, and the mentally ill. He's joined the chorus to limit bargaining rights of public-employee unions, although in a right-to-work state they have limited clout already. He wants to, like Christie, lower the amount of local property taxes designated for public schools, while ignoring the fact that the Florida legislature has steadily shifted responsibility to fund FEFP to the local level. How the gap will be filled is anyone's guess. To pour salt in the wounds, his budget severely reduces funding to higher education, while paradoxically speaking of a more "educated workforce." He wants universal vouchers for families to choose their own school, but doesn't understand how more costly that would be and how inequitable education would become. Both he and Christie consult with Michelle Rhee, the firebrand who showed her distaste for teachers' unions while serving a brief, tumultuous tenure in Washington, D.C. She, like Christie, stealthily misleads her followers into thinking there are simple, universal problems and simple, universal solutions. Spare the rod, spoil the child.

Another newly elected governor, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, leads a state with a long history of collaborative, cooperative relationships with public employees' unions, a serious culture of scholarship and a shared commitment to serve the common good. But, after serving in local government, he's almost vengeful in his determination to dismantle public-employee unions and is using Christie-style scare tactics to convince Wisconsin voters that there will be a catastrophe if he doesn't get his way. This, even though Wisconsin is nowhere near the fiscal straights that he has portrayed. It barely registers on the chart that revealed New Jersey's problems. My friends in Florida (of both political stripes) are wondering what's been unleashed there. Wisconsin voters must be wondering the same thing. All three of these men, and I could add a few others, although elected democratically, now find democratic governance inconvenient, and too hard. They are simply called to fight. This isn't real reform. Reform means strengthening what works, and fixing what doesn't. It doesn't mean tearing things asunder, and scaring everyone into helping you do it.

Yesterday, I read a provocative piece in the New Republic by Ed Kilgore. His thesis is that this warfare politics of Republicans mirror a longtime Southern theory of economic growth. One that may not bode well for the country as a whole---

The problem with this Southern theory of growth is that it won’t work: Economic development experts usually deride “Moonlight and Magnolias” approaches to job creation, noting that they track the outmoded first and second “waves” of basic economic development theory—which emphasized crude economic races to the bottom—as opposed to third and fourth “waves” that focus on worker skills, quality of life, public-private partnerships, innovation, and sustainability. If Wisconsin and other states—not to mention the country as a whole—end up adopting these atavistic economic ideals, they will simply begin to resemble the dysfunctional Old South societies that spawned them in the first place.

So what is at stake in Wisconsin, and across the country, is not just the pay and benefits of public employees, or their collective bargaining rights, or the specific programs facing the budgetary knife. We are contesting whether Americans who are not “job creators,” by virtue of wealth, should be considered anything more than cannon fodder in an endless war between states—and countries—over who can attract the most capital by slashing the most regulations. In this sense, standing up to Scott Walker is a truly worthy fight.

I don't like politicians who try to scare me into supporting them and their ideas. I like those who inform, inspire, challenge and motivate me. I don't respect politicians who manufacture villains and scapegoats. I respect those who explain complexities, and seek comprehensive solutions and diverse allies.

I wonder...about the so-certain tea-partiers, partisans, media pundits, and others ...who've set the stage for this political theater. When will they understand the consequences of policies built on this kind of politics? ...That's when...I circle back to those audacious revolutionaries in the Middle East. They're not clamoring for rights to be taken away, for their leaders to manufacture villains, promote division, exaggerate problems, or hide greater complexities.........no, they're demanding the right to democratically choose among candidates....those who will work together to solve problems, respect the dignity of all their people, promote prosperity for everyone, and serve the common good.

If you were to describe the antics and actions of these governors to any of these revolutionaries and ask if that's the kind of leader they would vote for, I'm willing to bet most would say...no. No, that's not what our country needs...Does yours? My question exactly.

Rick Hess: Common Core Standards and Charter Schools. Be careful what you wish for. Standardization and high-stakes testing for everyone.

2011-02-25T16:10:00.008-05:00

I don't know if many read Rick Hess's last post on Common Core Standards and charter schools, but it struck me as a reminder of the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for."

Here's a big excerpt--

Yesterday, I noted a few worrisome signs that the Common Core effort is moving forward with a lack of attention to how it may clash with other practical considerations or improvement strategies. The risk here is aggravated by the fact that the Common Core effort has now largely been handed off to state assessment directors, test developers, psychometricians, and overworked staff at a few national organizations--and these well-meaning people aren't necessarily interested in or sensitive to the broader impact of their handiwork.

A particularly compelling example is posed by the looming collision that might occur when the unfolding effort comes to the attention of charter schoolers and school choice enthusiasts. Choice proponents--especially governors like Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and Mitch Daniels (not to mention state chiefs like Tony Bennett and Paul Pastorek) who have championed choice while expressing support for common standards--would do well to take note.

What's the issue? After all, since A Nation at Risk, choice and standards-based accountability have operated as the complementary pillars of school reform. In theory, test-based accountability was a mechanism for ensuring that schools were performing, making it possible to reduce micromanagement, slash regulation, and boost school autonomy.

Now, in practice, any standardized assessment system is going to be constraining to some extent (by requiring that schools teach certain skills or materials in the course of a given year), but charter schools and choice advocates have largely made their peace with that kind of accountability. What's unsettling about the Common Core push is how much more intrusive the assessments and prescriptions appear to be getting, without anyone having really thought through the consequences...

Under such a system, all schools in participating states will need to cover that material in the prescribed timeframe or risk bombing on the assessment. To a layman, this starts to look a lot like granular prescription of scope, sequence, content, and instruction. And, despite the familiar assurances that the Common Core won't impinge on curricular or instructional freedom, it may very well pose grave problems for charter schools or other schools that employ an alternative curricular or instructional model. (Which isn't all that surprising, given the covetous glances that many of the designers cast upon centralized, highly prescriptive systems like those in Finland or Singapore.)

(Note: I know Mr. Hess is an expert on and promoter of market-based, standardized test-based education reform...but...my understanding is that Finland has a set of very basic standards, requires minimal testing, grants generous autonomy to teachers (highly respected and supported) to design their curriculum, approaches and methods, and encourages much collaboration and individualized instruction.)

Charter operators and advocates have generally not been engaged in the Common Core assessment discussion and are largely unaware of the track down which the exercise is rapidly progressing. Moreover, in a worrisome twist, it seems to me that this tightly buttoned, narrowly drawn vision of curriculum and assessment, handled wrongly, could pose a grave threat to schools built around radical customization (like the School of One).

I sympathize with the push for the Common Core and regard many enthusiasts as close friends. But I think they need to do a far better job of thinking and talking about the real-world impact of their elegant stylings, or they're going to build an exquisitely engineered project that is at cross-purposes with the practical concerns of an array of policymakers, parents, and educators.

With all due respect, such pronouncements hide a greater, and disturbing truth. For decades now, Mr. Hess and an intertwined, powerful coalition of reformers have pressured, cajoled and convinced policymakers into implementing their market-based, standardized test-based agenda.

The premises of their agenda: Performance on high-stakes standardized testing should define student assessments, school accountability and teacher pay. Competition through school choice should improve education in traditional schools. Charter schools should be the mechanism for real innovation.

The reality is that in our "free, public education system," 85% of America's children are taught in traditional public schools. A mere 2.5 % are in charter public schools. And, while there are a few notable, and truly innovative stars, the overall record for charter schools is spotty, especially now that they're being corporatized and franchized. The other reality is that this agenda has encouraged... a testing culture in which all schools, traditional and charter, are educating children in increasingly more narrow, more formulaic ways...an undercurrent that encourages teachers and schools to compete with one another to boost test scores instead of working collaboratively to fully educate all children...and political rhetoric, media coverage, and public discourse that center disproportionately on test scores (and, recently, a lot of teacher "bashing").

Since Federal and state education policies apply to all children in public schools and standardized testing has grown to undergird most of the policies, it was inevitable that common standards would emerge to achieve more certainty, consistency, fairness, i.e. a more level playing field. Since such high stakes are involved, and so many dynamic conditions, circumstances and variables that impact learning, it's practical to use more uniform standards. They've also been promoted by many in the business community, especially big business is attracted to simple "formulas" for improving "profitability." Whether they will make for more fully educated children, I don't know, since I'm already concerned about deepening standardization and the negative effects of high-stakes testing. But, I do understand why and how they've been developed.

So, to read the words of Mr. Hess and others who now fret over the consequences of what they've created...I'm dismayed and...frankly...angry. First, to say that charter schools have reluctantly "made their peace with that kind of accountability," (implying that he wished they didn't have to comply). Second, "in a worrisome twist, it seems to me that this tightly buttoned, narrowly drawn vision of curriculum and assessment, handled wrongly, could pose a grave threat to schools built around radical customization," (implying that their agenda doesn't already encourage such vision).

Well, my thought is, be careful what you wish for. Mr. Hess reveals that he's most concerned about negative impacts on charter schools. I suppose because he has such little trust in traditional public schools, he must think that a "tightly buttoned, narrowly drawn vision of curriculum and assessment" is OK for 85% of our children in them, but finds it "worrisome" that charter schools that serve 2.5% of our children might now have to operate within the same assessment and accountability system he has helped to create. Not acknowledging that Common Core Standards are a predictable evolution of his reform agenda, he's now surprised and alarmed about their impact, "without anyone having really thought through the consequences."

I'm at a bit of a loss. Is this...Naive? Disingenuous? Hypocritical? I don't know.

However, I do know this. This reform agenda that's logically evolved to be one built around common standards is one that Mr. Hess helped in great measure to create. His concerns now are numerous..."how much more intrusive the assessments and prescriptions appear to be getting," "tightly buttoned, narrowly drawn vision of curriculum and assessment," "intrusive prescription or risk bombing on state tests," "exquisitely engineered project that is at cross-purposes with the practical concerns of an array of policymakers, parents, and educators."

He's right. There are a growing number of "policymakers, parents, and educators." But I'm not talking about those who believe charter schools are the panacea and should be held to different standards. No, I'm talking about those who support our once-democratic, once-community-centered, once-collaborative, once-whole-child-focused traditional public schools. They are concerned, and increasingly so, about this reform agenda in general and how it is already creating those consequences that Mr. Hess is now fretting about. If this is the card dealt our traditional public schools through politics and policymaking, then Common Core Standards are a way to enable more consistency and fairness. If the reform coalition really in fact cares about all children and all schools, perhaps they'd better look at the basic premises of their reform agenda, instead of showing sudden concern because it may now negatively impact charter schools.

The conundrum of pensions and a secure retirement. How do we create a more equitable workplace? Update.

2011-02-18T14:32:00.018-05:00

My father, a characteristically humble World War II veteran, came back from medic duty to become the first in his family to go to college. His love for the Navy led him to a career as a naval architect with a big defense contractor. He had the good fortune of working during the era when private companies offered defined-benefit pensions and lifelong health care to their employees. He loved his work and stayed on the job long past the normal retirement age. When he did finally retire, he had great financial security because of his pension and additional Social Security income. He never had to worry about health care because of Medicare and the additional coverage provided by his longtime employer.

My mother worked for a state university for over twenty years. Now she's a widow, but has great financial stability and security because of her state defined-benefit pension, and a portion of my father's pension. She, too, never has had to worry about health care because of Medicare and the additional coverage provided by the state government for whom she worked (and my father's employer.) Because of that built-in foundation, they were also able to squirrel away investments in IRA's and simple savings. They were not wealthy by any means, but their employment years provided a solid, stable middle-class life for our family and then for their retirement.

Now we live in different times. Our lingering, painful recession has laid bare the differences between today's private sector and today's public sector. My family's experience shows that private employers and public employers used to be quite similar in how they fulfilled their responsibilities to their employees in terms of retirement and lifelong health care. But over time, for lots of reasons, the private sector shifted those responsibilities more to employees (defined-contribution retirement funds, i.e. 401K's, and moved away from assisting with lifelong healthcare costs). But the public sector continued with the traditional model, with the help of organized labor.

The differences are now wide, with the result that most private employees have much less financial and healthcare stability and security than most public employees. Deep fissures are growing between them. Myths. Resentments. Misunderstandings. Accusations. Unfortunately, some elected officials are taking advantage of those fissures and deepening them. The shrill examples of Governors Christie, Walker and Scott come to mind. Governors of more temperate, less partisan temperament are proposing practical, necessary reforms. These others, revealing an ignorance of history or callous disregard toward it, want to weaken the foundation of stability and security for public employees, as if to punish, to the point of severely restricting or eliminating collective bargaining rights...They seem to not understand how civil rights... human rights... for all workers lie within the history of the labor movement and how those rights have shaped our unique, once healthy, democracy.

In an even larger context....it's notable then that few elected officials of any stripe are focused on how to challenge and incentivize private employers to strengthen the foundation of stability and security for their employees...And seldom encourage all Americans to consume less, save more...live better...and remind us of the common good achieved through sharing...caring.

Like most issues of this size, it's complicated. The facts. The history. The politics. The emotions. Turns out, they're more complicated than I realized.
----------
Here's a small sampling---

USA Today article (2007) "Pension Gap Divides Public and Private Workers"

Retired government workers are twice as likely to get a pension as their counterparts in the private sector, and the typical benefit is far more generous. The nation's 6 million retired civil servants — teachers, police, administrators, laborers — received a median benefit of $17,640 in 2005, according to the Congressional Research Service. Eleven million private-sector retirees covered by traditional pensions got $7,692.

Governments' generosity could have serious consequences for taxpayers and pensioners. Some states — including Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and West Virginia — have troubled retirement systems that may require huge tax increases, spending cuts or even defaulting on promised benefits. The U.S. government has a bigger unfunded liability for military and civil servant retirement benefits ($4.7 trillion) than it does for Social Security ($4.6 trillion).

The pension gap will continue to widen because governments pump far more money into employee pensions than companies do. Civil servants earn an average of $12.38 an hour in benefits, about $5 an hour more than private-sector workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The difference was just $2.70 an hour in 1995.

New York Times article (2010) "The Coming Class War over Public Pensions"

The haves are retirees who were once state or municipal workers. Their seemingly guaranteed and ever-escalating monthly pension benefits are breaking budgets nationwide.

The have-nots are taxpayers who don’t have generous pensions. Their 401(k)s or individual retirement accounts have taken a real beating in recent years and are not guaranteed. And soon, many of those people will be paying higher taxes or getting fewer state services as their states put more money aside to cover those pension checks.

At stake is at least $1 trillion. That’s trillion, with a “t,” as in titanic and terrifying.
The figure comes from a study by the Pew Center on the States that came out in February. Pew estimated a $1 trillion gap as of fiscal 2008 between what states had promised workers in the way of retiree pension, health care and other benefits and the money they currently had to pay for it all. And some economists say that Pew is too conservative and the problem is two or three times as large.

So a question of extraordinary financial, political, legal and moral complexity emerges, something that every one of us will be taking into town meetings and voting booths for years to come: Given how wrong past pension projections were, who should pay to fill the 13-figure financing gap?

New Republic- Citizen Cohn (2010) "Why public employees are the new welfare queens."

But ask yourself the same question you should have been asking then: To what extent is the problem that the retirement benefits for unionized public sector workers have become too generous? And to what extent is the problem that retirement benefits for everybody else have become too stingy?

I would suggest it's more the latter than the former. The promise of stable retirement--one not overly dependent on the ups and downs of the stock market--used to be part of the social contract. If you got an education and worked a steady job, then you got to live out the rest of your life comfortably. You might not be rich, but you wouldn't be poor, either.

Unions, whatever their flaws, have delivered on that for their members. (In theory, retirement was supposed to rest on a "three-legged stool" of Social Security, pensions, and private benefits.) But unions have not been able to secure similar benefits for everybody else. That's why the gap exists, although perhaps not for long.

The fact is that local and state governments have promised a lot more than they can deliver financially, in part because people love public services but hate to pay the taxes for them. In the short term, then, budget cuts are probably inevitable. And, in this political universe, the likely alternative to reducing public employee compensation is cutting essential services for people who are just as worthy and quite likely more needy.

In the long term, though, it seems like we should be looking for ways make sure that all workers have a decent living and a stable retirement, rather than taking away the security that some, albeit too few, have already. But that's a conversation about shared vulnerability and shared prosperity--a conversation we don't seem to be having right now.

New York Post (2010) "Public vs. Private Retirements" (Contributors are fellows at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute)

So, how do private sector retirement benefits look in comparison? Even if you’re one of the lucky few private-sector workers who gets a defined benefit pension (just 16% of workers in private industry do, as of 2009) your benefit is likely about half as generous as a government worker’s. And in New York, you must pay state and local income tax on pensions over $20,000, while public workers are entirely exempt.

The vast majority of private sector workers receive their retirement benefits in the form of a defined contribution plan, such as a 401(k) with employer match. These benefits are, on average, significantly less generous than the pensions provided to government workers.

The average American private sector worker receives 99 cents per hour worked in retirement benefits, mostly in the form of an employer-paid 401(k) contribution. The average state and local government worker gets $3.26, mostly in the form of pension benefits, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But those figures actually understate the public-private gap.

The Quick and the Ed: Public and Private Pensions (Important Distinctions) (2010)

The Century Foundation (progressive-leaning)- "Whatever Happened to Private Pensions" (2006) excerpted from book "The Collapse of Private Pension & Health Care Protections)

"Apart at the Seams" explores how this collapse of private sector retirement and health benefits came about and how it has affected the landscape of American social insurance. Morris examines the forthcoming strain on government benefit programs, the critical trends in American incomes and savings patterns, and the special features of the American health care system that make policy changes such a pressing concern. He argues that the question is not whether the American social insurance system must be fundamentally restructured - that has been going on, willy-nilly, for the past few decades - but rather, whether there are reasonable paths to closing the gaping holes in the existing system without doing violence to the long-standing American disposition toward mixed-enterprise solutions.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (U.S. Government Agency)

Brookings Institution "Private Pensions and Public Policy" (2004)

---------------

The current picture for middle to high-income retirees (many of whom have private and public defined-benefit pensions, plus additional healthcare coverage from their former employers) is a comfortable one. Going into the future, though, private employees of baby-boom age and younger will likely---

1) Work longer because their 401K's (and IRA's) have shown their vulnerability in economic downturns and many saw their other nest egg--home equity--drop in value or even evaporate. Working longer is not necessarily a negative because we're living longer and more healthy overall, but the consequence is the delay in the rejuvenating energy that comes from younger employees picking up the baton from older ones, and...

2) Be much more dependent on Social Security for basic living needs and Medicare for basic health care, and experience a less certain, less comfortable, less stable retirement than the World War II generation like my parents.

This will be at the same time, generally speaking, that those with defined-benefit pensions (public employees and a tiny number of private ones) will be retiring earlier than their private-sector peers, and enjoying relatively more comfortable, more secure, more stable "golden years." In essence, two "classes" of retirees. I write this from personal experience. Neither my husband nor I have a private or public defined-benefit pension, and we witnessed, with great anxiety, the vulnerability of 401K's, IRA's and home equity. I understand the emotions behind this current divide.

But these fissures don't have to continue. My view right now---

~Public employees, like it or not, right or wrong, need to more uniformly contribute to their retirement funds and healthcare costs. This currently varies from state to state, but if there were more of a common denominator of how much they contribute, private-sector employees would feel less resentful and shrill politicians would no longer be able to use public employees as scapegoats or easy targets. Offering your own solutions instead of letting politicians thrust their draconian ones upon you. Understanding the budget realities and the optics.

~Retiring elected officials, high-level public administrators and military top brass often secure pensions and other publicly funded benefits that seem disproportionately generous. Likewise, top private-sector executives are given retirement packages that seem disproportionately generous. They increasingly have access to additional income by returning multiple times to public-sector administrative positions or corporate office suites, sitting on corporate boards, receiving speaking fees, acting as pundits on cable news, being hired as lobbyists or think tank fellows. Their positions also allow them access to savvy legal, financial and tax advisers. It's not that most don't deserve are haven't earned all of this. It's more what seems fair and proportional in how their service is compensated and contributions are awarded. Showing more humility, more restraint...more understanding of everyone else's sense of security... Setting an example. Setting a tone.

~And private employers need to be more committed to their longtime employees in terms of their financial and health security in retirement. The alternative to private defined-benefit pensions should never have led to the current level of uncertainty, inadequacy and instability. There are no uniform ways to deal with this because of the complexity of the private sector, but it should be a shared value of all private-sector employers and a priority of policymakers. Show that all employees, public or private, are valued equally in our society and deserve equitable benefits. And, and...in return...if defined-contribution plans are to be the norm, then private employees, like it or not, right or wrong, need to the best of their ability contribute maximum dollars into them, especially during their prime earning years.

This could at least be a start. It shouldn't be a zero-sum game as too many politicians and pundits want it to be. We should be looking at strengthening the rights and lifetime stability of all employees, and clarifying the responsibilities of all employers, and employees themselves. Bring back that very American ideal that we are all in this together, and that all provide valuable service, whether one works in private industry or in government. Deal with the wide gulf that's growing between those who rise to the top and those who work every day in their shadows. And institute public policies that encourage and enable all three.

We need to take a deep breath. Walk in others' shoes. Seek the big picture. The long view. Repeating Jonathon Cohn's words (above)--

In the long term, though, it seems like we should be looking for ways make sure that all workers have a decent living and a stable retirement, rather than taking away the security that some, albeit too few, have already. But that's a conversation about shared vulnerability and shared prosperity--a conversation we don't seem to be having right now.

But that is the conversation that we do need. Right now.

Update 8PM--Watching PBS Newshour......If this is the common calculation... that private employees contribute around 30% of their earnings into their retirement funds and healthcare benefits, but public employees contribute around 5-6%, that's a huge difference, and a starting point for "is this really a healthy workplace?" Especially true if we're moving toward everyone having some sort of defined-contribution type of pension or retirement. Issues of equity, fairness..."all in this together" ...adequacy, security, stability...are particularly relevant and should be fully, openly......and honestly discussed, especially in upcoming policy debates over reducing the costs of Medicare and reforming Social Security. This is our country's wealth we're talking about, whether grown in the private sector or distributed through tax dollars. Frameworks, policies, institutions and politics that perpetuate two classes of retirees.. and divisiveness...are not healthy for our society or economy. (Additional info here about failures of 401K.)

The Good Teacher

2011-02-16T12:53:00.018-05:00

I just read a post from a teacher that made me think deeper about this whole debate we're having over the worth and place of teachers in this fast-changing world. (Thanks to a "tweet" from Chad Ratliff (educator, business professor, entrepreneur)

She writes,

Should an educator be present in more than a virtual context with learners? My answer remains yes. I am perhaps “old school” but, in my opinion, excellent educators create the context for a vibrant and interesting learning world. Learning at its best reflects the potential that exists when two or more minds – learners and teacher – interface to ask questions, share ideas, figure out knowledge sources, use technologies, and challenge assumptions. This happens purposely. It also happens spontaneously. It happens when both teacher and learner access the tools they need when they need them to power up learning – not power it down.

It also means educators must change, evolve rapidly, and retool to prove our continuing value to learners and learning. Despite our angst at the thought of it, just as with nineteenth century buggy-whip makers, much of what teachers do today is replaceable by new technologies. It won’t happen in five years, but it could happen in a decade in some content areas. Just as the need and desire for more efficient and customizable transportation accelerated with the invention of the car, the same need and desire will drive education through rapid changes as new learning technologies emerge and access becomes more ubiquitous.

What’s the take-away lesson I learned up above the clouds while Skyping with those teachers on the ground?

The sky’s no longer the limit.

Like many little girls, I wanted to be a teacher "when I grew up." I volunteered with special education students as a teenager, and started down the road to a teaching career. But, I was drawn more to art and biology, and gravitated to landscape architecture instead. It felt like a good fit...for a while...but ultimately I realized that you just can't have a relationship with a row of trees, plaza or parking lot like you can a child. For me, anyway. So, though remaining a garden designer and artist, a more personal kind of work I suppose, I essentially moved from the field I spent so long preparing for. I learned through that how complicated it is for most to find a path, a purpose. That it takes lots of experiences, mistakes, triumphs, relationships, influences, decisions, choices... And so it was during my hardest, most rewarding job as mother of two daughters that I circled back to the education world.

Long story short, I ran for the school board after years of volunteering in classrooms, teaching art and, out of character, becoming an advocate for kids over a local, contentious issue. I think I surprised everyone, mostly myself, when I won...with a lot of help from friends. What happened over the next four and a half years could fill a book. (Sadly, I lost some of those friends as their idea of public service turned out to be different than mine...and how we should value and respect all children. But I also gained precious new ones along the way.) It was a bittersweet, stressful experience, yet defining one. A voice I found, a passion, a purpose. So, in the end, it was all worth it. And I continue that journey today.

I've kind of surprised myself again with how I've been drawn so intensely into this debate over "education reform," especially how it's affecting, or should I say harming, teaching and learning. It comes from the gut, these thoughts.

So, after reading this post today, I wondered, what exactly is a good teacher in this time of great change and controversy?

At its root, teaching is a relationship. The most human-driven profession...work...calling...service...on earth. It's hard. Personal. Deep. Each year eyes and minds locked together to explore, grow, dream, reach, grab hold of. In reality, the truth. There is nothing exact about it.

I counted. My daughters, from kindergarten through twelfth grade, were taught by at least ninety...ninety...classroom teachers. And maybe two dozen more educators in schools impacting them in ways small and large. Plus those after school and during summers. The adage then is true. We had a village helping us raise our children to adulthood. Now, in college, professors and instructors again helping us take them to the next intellectual, emotional, philosophical level. The village just keeps growing. And...I...am...grateful.

Among them, there were a few...a few...who were not the greatest... two or three I would call "ineffective"...and none I would call "bad." ---That toxic word politicians and pundits (and the Michelle Rhee's of the world) use to scare everyone into supporting their oft-draconian reforms. You know...standardize, test, measure, test, punish, test, privatize...

The rest of my girls' teachers...the overwhelming majority...were "good" ..."effective"... in their own unique, human way. And a great number were amazing. I look at them now not in discrete years as the reformers want us to do, but as layers and weavings, a continuum building one on another...

Knowledge banks. Idea generators. Storytellers. Miracle Workers. Nurturers. Psychologists. Philosophers. Scientists. Writers. Historians. Mathematicians. Artists. Thespians. World Travelers (in body and mind). Leaders. Political Experts. Community Builders. Challengers to the status quo...

Intuitive. Resourceful. Strict. Flexible. Structured. Creative. Inspiring. Empathetic. Tough. Kind. Challenging. Nurturing. Satirical. Straightforward. Funny. Reassuring. Empowering. Whip-smart. Open-minded. Gentle. High-energy. Constant...

These words describe humanity. The job of teachers really is to help our children see their own humanity. Over the years, teachers and their students see themselves reflected in one another, and they both grow. The whole idea of life is to continue to explore and deepen understanding of yourself and how you fit into this crazy, messy, scary, wonderful world. Teachers help provide the keys to unlock those many doors, and give you the ability and courage to walk through them.

The reformers have gotten this wrong idea that this journey can be standardized, put into a manual, a software program, a box of formulas, a test. Cloaked in "reform," but perpetuating a status quo or thin soup. Real teaching, real learning over the span of childhood, and life...are too dynamic, too human, for that kind of thinking, that kind of rhetoric.

Teachers are not afraid of technology or change. They know our children. And know how to adapt and transform our education system, if we let them....(and let go of the the false ideologies of standardization and privatization, the red herrings of unions and "bad teachers")....if we trust them, respect them, empower them...listen to them.

And...if...reformers stop trivializing poverty and start strengthening the whole village to provide a multitude of services, nutritious food, books, decent places to live, stable jobs...for families struggling through poverty...23% of our children now live in poverty...23%...All of the good and amazing teachers in the world cannot fully unlock doors for them if their communities remain so impoverished, so isolated, so misunderstood. That must change... to teach them with respect as whole children, unleash in them their full humanity.

True and only then will it be...that the "sky's no longer the limit."

Go to Save our Schools. Join. Get involved. Come. March. Speak up. Save our schools.

Public Policy Blogger

2012: Healthy seeds in fertile soil

In the meantime. A conversation about our economy.

Newt Gingrich's "big" idea about poverty

Choosing to be hopeful at Thanksgiving

Connect to Compete. Bridging the digital divide. It's about time.

Inevitable consequences of too much standardization and testing in our public schools

Questions for Presidential candidates. What you owe the next generation.

The world's children. Malaria vaccine a sign of hope. Questions for the future.

Understanding our fault lines

Some advice for young people in 140 characters

The data: Poverty, health, children and soldiers

Public Education in America: Looking into the crystal ball

Acumen Fund et al: The young leading the way

Elizabeth Warren and Paul Ryan: Not-so-strange bedfellows

9/11: Reflections after ten years w/ update

Previous Entry

Next Entry

Previous Entry

Next Entry

Previous Entry

Next Entry

Previous Entry

Next Entry

Previous Entry

Next Entry

Previous Entry

Next Entry

Previous Entry

Next Entry

Previous Entry

Next Entry

Previous Entry

Next Entry

Be back soon

Save Our Schools March. Now what? (updates)

Top Videos from Saturday's Save Our Schools March in D.C. (updates)

They say, just run schools like businesses. Oh, really?

Not an either/or. We need college prep and career tech. We need dreamers and doers.

Back to it. A blog from Israel. Thoughts on standardization and testing.

Is narrow lens of standardized testing making us lose sight of our humanity? w/ update

It's time we all grow up (w/ update)

Education Reform: What if Bill Gates and President Obama are wrong?

Words for today's college grads

A gift to my daughter

Reforming the American public education system. Are we on the wrong path?

Not a matter of love vs. hate. Sometimes, you just have to do what you have to do.

Demise of Bin Laden. The 9/11 generation reacts. Update

How we got here

From surplus to debt

In 2000, the United States had $3.4 trillion in debt held by the public. Based on policies in place at the time, the Congressional Budget Office projected in 2001 that the country could pay off its debt by the year 2008 and by 2011 have a $2.3 trillion surplus.

A school reform story. Are we losing something precious and fundamental?

NCLB reauthorization. Is there common ground?

If only President Obama would say this. For the sake of our children and our future.

Trouble in paradise

For the love of books, thoughts and ideas...for the love of our children.

Don't underestimate Americans' capacity for a dialogue on shared priorities and a sustainable path. Update.

On what we agree. And questions for current education reformers.

Open letter to President Obama, Secretary Duncan and Senator Lieberman. Cc: Powerful and outspoken merit pay supporters. Update.

Poverty data reveal our priorities. Challenging ourselves and our leaders. Update.

Children Under 18 Living in Poverty, 2008

Lessons from Florida. One-party state. Children living in poverty. Frayed society in paradise. Update.

Why won't you listen, President Obama? This is about the kids. It always has been. Update.

Christie, Walker & Scott. Scaring and dividing us is not governing. Update.

Rick Hess: Common Core Standards and Charter Schools. Be careful what you wish for. Standardization and high-stakes testing for everyone.

The conundrum of pensions and a secure retirement. How do we create a more equitable workplace? Update.

The Good Teacher