 |
||
Of course I would have loved to have seen Linda Darling-Hammond become Secretary of Education in an Obama administration. She's smart, honest, compassionate and courageous, and perhaps most striking, she actually knows schools and classrooms, curriculum and teaching, kids and child development. These have never counted for much as qualifications for the post, of course, and yet they offer a neat contrast with the four failed urban school superintendents--Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, Paul Vallas, and Arne Duncan -- who were for weeks rumored to be her chief competition.
These four, like George W. Bush's Secretary of Education, Rod Paige of the fraudulent Texas-miracle, have little to show in terms of school improvement beyond a deeply dishonest public relations narrative. Teacher accountability, relentless standardized testing, school closings, and privatization -- this is what the dogmatists and true-believers of the right call "reform." Michelle Rhee of Washington D.C., the most ideologically-driven of the bunch, warranted a cover story in Time in early December called "How to Fix America's Schools" in which she was praised for making more changes in a year and a half on the job than other school leaders, "even reform-minded ones," make in five: closing 21 schools (15% of the total), firing 100 central office personnel, 270 teachers, and 36 principals. These are all policy moves that are held on faith to stand for improvement; not a word on kids' learning or engagement with schools, not even a nod at evidence that might connect these moves with student progress. But of course evidence is always the enemy of dogma, and this is faith-based, fact-free school policy at its purest.
So I would have picked Darling-Hammond, but then again I would have picked Noam Chomsky for state, Naomi Klein for defense, Bernardine Dohrn for Attorney General, Bill Fletcher for commerce, James Thindwa for labor, Barbara Ransby for human services, Paul Krugman for treasury, and Amy Goodman for press secretary. So what do I know?
Darling-Hammond would not have been a smart pick for Obama. She was steadily demonized in a concerted campaign to undermine her effectiveness, and she would surely have had great difficulty getting any traction whatsoever for progressive policy change in this environment. Arne Duncan was the smart choice, the unity choice--the least driven by ideology, the most open to working with teachers and unions, the smartest by a mile-- and let's wish him well.
But there's a deeper point: since the Obama victory, many people seem to be suffering a kind of post-partum depression: unable to find any polls to obsess over, we read the tea-leaves and try to penetrate the president-elect's mind. What do his moves portend? What magic or disaster awaits us? With due respect, this is a matter of looking entirely in the wrong direction.
Obama is not a monarch -- Arne Duncan is not education czar -- and we are not his subjects. If we want a foreign policy based on justice, for example, we ought to get busy organizing a robust anti-imperialist peace movement; if we want to end the death penalty we better get smart about changing the dominant narrative concerning crime and punishment. We are not allowed to sit quietly in a democracy awaiting salvation from above. We are all equal, and we all need to speak up and speak out right now.
During Arne Duncan's tenure in Chicago, a group of hunger-striking mothers organized city-wide support and won the construction of a new high school in a community that had been underserved and denied for years. Another group of parents, teachers, and students mobilized to push military recruiters out of their high school; Duncan didn't support them and he certainly didn't lead the charge, but they won anyway. If they'd waited for Duncan to act they'd likely be waiting still. Teachers at another school refused to give one of the endless standardized tests, arguing that this was one test too many, and they organized deep support for their protest; Duncan didn't support them either, but they won anyway. If they'd waited for Duncan, they'd be waiting still. Why would anyone sit around waiting for Arne now? Stop whining; get busy.
In the realm of education, there is nothing preventing any of us from pressing to change the dominant discourse that has controlled the discussion for many years. It's reasonable to assume that education in a democracy is distinct from education under a dictatorship or a monarchy, but how? Surely school leaders in fascist Germany or communist Albania or medieval Saudi Arabia all agreed, for example, that students should behave well, stay away from drugs and crime, do their homework, study hard, and master the subject matters, so those things don't differentiate a democratic education from any other.
What makes education in a democracy distinct is a commitment to a particularly precious and fragile ideal, and that is a belief that the fullest development of all is the necessary condition for the full development of each; conversely, the fullest development of each is necessary for the full development of all.
Democracy, after all, is geared toward participation and engagement, and it's based on a common faith: every human being is of infinite and incalculable value, each a unique intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual, and creative force. Every human being is born free and equal in dignity and rights, each is endowed with reason and conscience, and deserves, then, a sense of solidarity, brotherhood and sisterhood, recognition and respect.
We want our students to be able to think for themselves, to make judgments based on evidence and argument, to develop minds of their own. We want them to ask fundamental questions---Who in the world am I? How did I get here and where am I going? What in the world are my choices? How in the world shall I proceed? --- and to pursue answers wherever they might take them. Democratic educators focus their efforts, not on the production of things so much as on the production of fully developed human beings who are capable of controlling and transforming their own lives, citizens who can participate fully in civic life.
Democratic teaching encourages students to develop initiative and imagination, the capacity to name the world, to identify the obstacles to their full humanity, and the courage to act upon whatever the known demands. Education in a democracy should be characteristically eye-popping and mind-blowing--always about opening doors and opening minds as students forge their own pathways into a wider world.
How do our schools here and now measure up to the democratic ideal?
Much of what we call schooling forecloses or shuts down or walls off meaningful choice-making. Much of it is based on obedience and conformity, the hallmarks of every authoritarian regime. Much of it banishes the unpopular, squirms in the presence of the unorthodox, hides the unpleasant. There's no space for skepticism, irreverence, or even doubt. While many of us long for teaching as something transcendent and powerful, we find ourselves too-often locked in situations that reduce teaching to a kind of glorified clerking, passing along a curriculum of received wisdom and predigested and often false bits of information. This is a recipe for disaster in the long run.
Educators, students, and citizens must press now for an education worthy of a democracy, including an end to sorting people into winners and losers through expensive standardized tests which act as pseudo-scientific forms of surveillance; an end to starving schools of needed resources and then blaming teachers and their unions for dismal outcomes; and an end to the rapidly accumulating "educational debt," the resources due to communities historically segregated, under-funded and under-served. All children and youth in a democracy, regardless of economic circumstance, deserve full access to richly-resourced classrooms led by caring, qualified and generously compensated teachers. So let's push for that, and let's make it happen before Arne Duncan or anyone else grants us permission.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
In a recent report by McKinsey & Company, How the World's Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top, this prominent consulting company finds that school success hinges on recruiting and supporting high-quality teachers for all students. ...
Interestingly, the business leaders and other "free market" advocates who have greatly influenced public education policy over the past two decades have not shared with educators this relentless focus on human capital. Instead their focus for improving schools has been on a stodgy version of standards-based reform, driven by accountability and testing from the top-down. In this view, federal and state education officials and testing companies, along with psychometricians and educational researchers, carefully calibrate incentives and penalties based on test data. ...
Given this, it would be naïve to think we can reform the education system with mere legislation. Such is the complexity and interdependence of the many parts of this system that reform efforts are unsustainable and quickly overwhelmed by the status quo. The "education industrial complex," to paraphrase President Eisenhower's famous warning about the "military industrial complex," composed of bureaucrats, business leaders, and researchers, is continuing to tighten the bindings of data systems and accountability algorithms. ....The real challenge of getting meaningful change, one based on investment in human capital, begins with restoring the stature and credibility of teachers and their unions as leaders in support of world-class schools and high quality learning for all students. Read more at www.educat
This man is a murderer! He has declared war on the United States of America!
You all should be ashamed for promoting him! WHO is next? Charles Manson?
The Unibomber? This man should be in prison for life.
Brilliant as always professor. Of course the only pick I agree with you on is Paul Krugman, but then what do I know? ;) I just appreciate your thoughtful insight.
Why is everyone so critical of Rhee. I have some agreements with this article in what to expect from educating students. However teaching like every other profession has teachers that are not performing to meet the needs of the students. Therefore she got rid of them. I am an educator and I would say that I work with half of my school being great teachers, willing to do what it takes to bring the best out of every student and improve their grades and another half that just show up give students something to do, do enough to CYA and get a paycheck. Rhee wants to get rid of the second half. What is so wrong with that. We have all had those teachers
Perhaps Rhee wants to get rid of the non-conformists? A mandate set by her superiors in a non-disclosed session of intentions toward compliance with making sheep out of constiuants.
Great post. Please, do more. Very astute and in tune with how we made change.
Has Ayers decided who will be the next Sec of Comm?
Now I understand why Sarah Palin claims that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists*: "terrorist" is her word for people who actually know how to form a logical argument and hold progressive views. No "real American" would ever consider appointing Noam Chomsky or Amy Goodman to any important position.
*Obama was never a close friend of Bill Ayers; they just sat on a board together.
Couldn't have said it any better myself. I had the chance to meet Bill Ayers last year and he is a brilliant man with excellent ideas.
Sarah was actually going for the traditional definition of ter rorist. Like, someone who co-founded a ter rorist organization that committed acts of ter ror.
What's the point of wasting money on education? We are moving more and more into becoming a socialist nation which means there won't be any jobs anyhow no matter how educated you are...reme
"Whats the point of wasting money on education?" You sound like a cynical enabler to failure.
ok, u really need to stop listening to rush for the definition of socialism.
If you knew what socialism was, both in theory or practice, you would not write such a comment. Your posting only emphasizes Professor Ayer's point-our schools are not teaching critical thinking or any thinking skills. Our educational system is class based, since it is supported in large part by property taxes. How is that socialism? If you are rich you go to better schools, ample supplies, more class choices, more parents involved (they're not working three jobs), PTO's that raise additional money, etc. Even within the same school district there are enormous discrepancies. I worked in one of the most affluent college towns in NJ. The side of the town that is affluent has two great elementary schools. The side of town that's in the ghetto has a poorly administrated and demoralized staff-providing inferior teaching.
As a former teacher, thank you Professor Ayers and your wife for unwavering bravery and insight, now and in the past.
A voice that needs to roar! Prof, you remind me of James Herndon "How To Survive In Your Native Land", and all the other advocates of authentic learning. Get rid of the NCLB "sorting hat" and let's back to teaching. I'm a literacy coordinator at a Title 1 middle school (and was a 20 yr public school board member in CA), and after we dump the test obsession, perhaps we can begin to make school relevant to these underprivileged adolescents? 1 in 4drop out in 9th gr because they are so disconnected from the school, which now is nothing more than a test prep machine. There is no joy, and many deliberately rebel and refuse to perform on the tests. How about a a movement for small learning communities and "schools within a school" for our hardcore 7th and 8th graders? Often, these are the kids who are toxic to new teachers and the bane of the vets. There should be action on a 2 yr HS Diploma fueled by accelerated tech/voc programs--that would well serve many of my students. They would certainly get excited and engaged if they could see something (a trade, a future) and understand how their choices could make it happen. When are we going to break the grip of standards tied to grade levels (or do all brains learn all things at the same time?)? RELEVANT to kids lives? Keep up the good work and recruit! You have a national voice now.
Prof. Ayers echoes the "we" in "Yes We Can". TIme for Americans to look carefully at their public education system and pitch in to 'fix it'.
"This nation needs to recognize as a matter of fact that most of those who have brought children into the world are as incompetent and indifferent as George W. Bush where the needs of a child are concerned.
No!
Some parents are so engrossed in their own careers that they use money to provide the right neighborhood and so their children can compete with their friends material goods. They substitute money for actual parenting and involvement in their children's lives..
Some parents are focused on survival - meals, a roof over their heads, and utilitiy bills, that they are rarely home, and when they are, they're exhausted. They don't have the luxury of the time and money required to be involved in their children's lives.
This reflects societal values:
* Success in the United States is measured by how much money you have and nothing else.
* We don't believe in the equal value of each person or that all people are deserving of human and civil rights.
* The working poor deserve their difficult lives as if the jobs they do aren't required for all of us to live the lives we lead. (Can you imagine an executive cleaning the toilets in his office, growing his own food and cooking it, or paving the roads he drives on?)
* Depriving others of basic necessities is a respectable way to acquire wealth needed solely for bragging rights.
Great post! You should do a guest blog.
You nailed it. Our "society values" have been flushed down the toilet and replaced with the value of acquiring wealth and possessions, starting in our schools with the kids competing for who has the latest cell phone and i pod to be cool. Those who don't steal them from their classmates. And the parents fuel this value by competing for more wealth and possessions.
micheal douglas said it best in "wall street", greed, for lack of a better word, is good.
it's even more ironic that this ideal is carried by the conservative right. obviously, they're ignoring the part were jesus said it was easier for a camal to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. oh, and the part were jesus said to treat the lowest amost ourselves as though they were him, for they are his brothers.
This nation needs to recognize as a matter of fact that most of those who have brought children into the world are as incompetent and indifferent as George W. Bush where the needs of a child are concerned.
Obama has offered the best educational vision available to us in the form of early childhood education. Yes he has called for more parental involvement but let us get real, this is not going to happen and it is probably a good thing. Most of us never learned how to be parents, we had no role models because those who traditionally provided such were away from home trying to achieve the much touted American Dream.
Where our money needs to be spent is in our day care centers where the average worker neither has nor aspires to have the educational foundation necessary to help our young overcome the fear of things new and strange and inspire in them a life long habits which result in knowledge, understanding and wisdom they will need to deal with the debt George W. Bush has saddled them with.
We need to incorporate these private institutions into our national school systems and increase the wage levels to where they actually offer the compensatory values a truly gifted child care practitioner would find attractive.
I read this article and the accompanying comments (some) with great interest. As both educator and parent I can but add one fervent wish. We must retain the knowledge from the astounding alternative schools movement which flourished until the horrible Reagan era ended these choices. Choices that are available to students and their parents mean so much more than this or that currently favored education policy. The key is this: funding these choices, a panoply of alternatives in education, as part of our public and accredited school system. That will work to avoid the misery that is privatising of choice for the wealthy and fortunately located while leaving the rest (public) in regimented holding cells of violence and mediocrity. We do not need to standardize curriculum or method. We do need to standardize FUNDING. This certainly means disconnecting school funding from local property taxes. That can only be done when citizens are convinced that the choices in education remain theirs, so that federal funding is a democratic improvement, not a threat to choice.
Education and health care aren't nearly as important as protecting our status as the number 1 country in the world for CEO compensation.
Really? Absolutely amazing!! The people praising this guy is just incredible. You know, the next time I go to the hospital ER I'm going to demand that the attending physician must be from an university that gave no grades or standardized tests. I just want someone who participated in a 'democratic education' and felt like they'd be a good doctor.
And just toss out the window those accountablity requirements for teachers or school systems. Because we all know that is just a mean-spirited, Republican thing to do and the real problem is that public schools are underfunded, right? I challenge you all to read this article from the Washington Post by Andrew Coulson entitled "The Real Cost of Public Education" at http://www
Interestingly enough, the tuition cost for the Obama children's new private school (Sidwell) in DC isn't that much different than the amount spent per pupil in the Washington DC public school system. And supposedly learned individuals scoff at accountability and measuring results? With this kind of money spent only to have the absolutely abysmal state of Washington DC schools it is not logical, rational or responsible to see not see folly in the educational system that Mr. Ayers imagines.
I don't think that many teachers would be on board with no grades and no standardized tests - at least none that I work with are against accountability or measuring progress. The problem is one of definition: is accountability getting all kids to the same goal as has been the model in NCLB or is it taking kids from where they are and providing them with the support to develop/improve skills and knowledge, and even sometimes just planting seeds with the hope that they will grow when the climate is more favorable. Does measuring progress mean getting all kids to be able to answer the same questions with the same state-approved answer or do we want demonstrations of thinking (even divergent thoughts and analysis).
I consider standardized tests and grades as counterproductive to learning. As a teacher, I would KNOW what my students know. Then, in place of testing, I would have them demonstrate their knowledge by teaching the incoming class what was the most important thing they learned this year.
Grades are limiting. Standardized tests take away the goal of education. To learn beyond the introduction to the subject, and to be engrossed in the depth of the subject.
I learned geometry in a classic class of teaching to the text, standardized tests and grades. I failed it. I took the same subject in a summer school class where the teacher had the students teach themselves. We all had a Teacher's Edition of the Subject. The answers were in the back of the book with demonstrations on how the problems were solved. The teacher was there only for guidance.
I fell in love with a subject I had hated. I progressed on my own level to trigonometry. I could tutor others in the subject by the time the class had ended.
Learning is a pleasure, and when done right, it never ends.
Current assumptions from many directions tend to see kids entering the classroom as empty vessels ready - even eager - to be filled. The reality is much more nuanced. Kids come from families, families have varying expectations about education and support the process along a continuum from active hostility to total immersion. Kids live in a world of ideas from family, friends, and the media that again either supports or opposes education. Kids also take cues from the community in that they are fully aware of community values toward public education as implicitly demonstrated by the general upkeep (cleanliness and state of repair) of their school and the resources (textbooks and lab materials) provided in their classes.
This is where the comparison of public schools to charter or private schools falls apart because in these schools you have students from a self selected group of families at the positive end of the educational support spectrum. In charter or private schools, ambitions and resources come together to create a different environment than found in many public schools where the staff expends a much greater percentage of energy fighting negative values toward education within crumbling infrastructure. Its simply easier to be successful when you have resources - both attitudinal and physical.
As a middle school teacher, my hope is that the new education secretary is pragmatic and looks to measuring progress from where we start - our kids and our facilities - instead of against arbitrary politically motivated standards.
Those sound like great ideas IndianConservative. I'm glad you've abandoned your old reactionary conservative primitive ideas like "accountability" and those "old dead white guy subjects" like "math" and "science". Those are sooooooo, like, 18th century.
LoL! I should be ashamed of myself for having believed such things!!
Shame on me! LOL.
Some of us learned folks would prefer that achievement be measured correctly. Unfortunately it is not. We would like the accountability system to improve the status of education and it certainly has had the opposite effect. The existing system is an expensive waste, but it sure has improved the financial standing of Bush contributors for Education Testing Services and McGraw-Hill. Of course, this opinion is based on evidence rather than opinion,
I can pretty much guarentee you that the teachers at Sidwell friends won't spend a moment of their time worrying about standardiized tests. Parents who can afford such schools would never allow them to be turned into the testing factories Bush has made our public schools into. Those teachers also won't have to worry about which students had dinner last night or a parent who cares and has time to participate in their education.
It isn't just the money, but the challenges inner city teachers face, starting with parents who have little faith on the schools,since those sames schools failed them when they were kids. Breaking this cycle won't come easy, but 8 years of NCLB have proven 2 things.Sta
So let's go back to the old system and continue to let the school systems fail and pretend it's ok? I agree that NCLB may have some problems, but I think having some sort of accountability isn't unreasonable. There needs to be ways to measure success. But pretending that the public schools aren't failing is disingenuous. There are significant problems in our educational system, and I don't think testing is the leading culprit, and the answer isn't just throwing money at it and trashing standards.
The other 800 lb gorilla in the room is the term "success" itself...a lot of people are scared to use the word, (as well as the word excellence). It denotes a difference or possible prejudice that might suggest not all people might be able to attain it. Elites might even explain that these words are unfair, biased, possibly bigoted and a number of other un-PC things.
BTW...I would agree that Sidwell probably emphasizes testing less, and I'm pretty certain that these kids are a little more prepared and the learning environment is little more conducive to learning. With that being said, I'm just as certain that the parents have some expectations and might believe there should be some kind of results for that kind of tuition...
Tests have their time and place.They are mile markers to tell you where you have been and where you need to go.But they have been over-used and act a substitute for every deficiency in education. It takes a great deal of time to "teach to the test". Every teacher will tell you that.
Why did my child perform better on standardized tests when she was home schooled and I put less focus on tests and more on learning? Are you smart enough to answer that? Many home schooling children are sought out in colleges because they are capable of thinking outside the box. There are many ways to teach a child. You just have be dedicated enough to find the one that works for your child.
The end result should be an educated child, not just someone who occupied a seat for twelve years.
I think you are in the minority here....I would think most of your "enlightened" progressive peers at HufPost would find your "home-schooling" practices to be provincial. There are several comments that I've read (on other blogs/articles) that are less than tolerant of people who choose to home school....
I would posit that your child receive the benefit of a parent's genuine care and passion for their success, and although you didn't emphasize testing per se, your child learned well because of what you were teaching (and it probably didn't hurt that the teacher-to-student ratio was probably a tad bit better than in a public school setting---you were able to provide the time and attention that fostered success). I totally agree--the end result should be an educated child, not just someone who coasted through and failed to receive the education they should have. Unfortunately, I see the results of those failed students everyday..
If you are implying that standardized tests would make someone a good doctor, I have to let you know that you are grossly incorrect. As someone who works both as a educator and as a test-writer (serving on committees writing those same standardized tests) I'd put my money on a doctor who participated in a "democratic education" any day - at least they would be able to think, evaluate, and analyze - skills that are missed in our current "test-prep" curriculums.
Accountablility absolutely, but I would hope you would want the measurement to be accurate. Is it now? What specifically do you know about NCLB and how it is being (mis)used?
It is too bad that so few really understand what is happening in education, and the tremendous costs to students (and our democracy at large).
The real folly are the people who believe they "know" education, when in reality, they know absolutely nothing...
I love your cabinet choices, Mr. Ayres. Now THAT's the kind of change and agenda many of us were/are hoping for. Amy Goodman for Press Secretary! Powerful!
Mr Ayers--
I enjoyed your article. I was wondering if the solution is "both"? I have been shamelessly complaining for some time now--my poor colleagues--that we do not "think" in this culture because we are not trained to do so. There is a lot of black-and-white thinking of the either-or variety, a certain type of rigidity that closes people off to other points of view. I have been wondering out loud if there is some way to start a campaign that will encourage our school system to teach kids to actually think. Where is the training for conflict resolution, which would teach people to argue points from the opposite point of view--thus opening them up to seeing the other side and hopefully creating an environment of understanding and peace?
That said, how do we teach kids to, say, analyze history and apply it to the present so they can prevent our society from repeating it--if they haven't memorized many facts to argue their point? They need the facts *and* they need to learn how to think about them.
What I am getting at here is that perhaps we need to focus on factual info and the basics since profs are complaining that the incoming college kids don't even have the basic skills/knowledge to build on.
Yet we also need to teach them to think and question--in other words, push for both in the education system? Is it possible?
What students need are more innovative projects to do in all subject areas which will involve them thinking, planning, reviewing the literature, comprehending, analyzing, implementing their project, then finally writing a good descriptive paper. They should be taught that textbooks, while mandatory as part of their curriculum, should not be the last word on any subject. They should serve as a stimulus for a thirst for knowledge. Students should be encouraged to use their creativity and individuality as they learn. But instead, we want to force feed them, leaving them somewhat desensitized to education. Education becomes only a process to go through as part of their rites of passage. Granted some students are serious about their education but not enough of them are encouraged to think and question what is presented to them as curriculum.
I think teachers, to be successful, need to love teaching. If they don't love it, they really had better find another job. I think most love teaching. I think they need to be free to be creative, innovative and original. This uniform method of teaching is unfair to teachers and to students. It defeats the process. Unless the goal is to raise ignorant, obedient, serfs for a totalitarian rule in the future.
I hated history until I read historical fiction. Then, I couldn't wait to learn the facts, dates and accurate historical events.
I could also apply the past to the present only through historical fiction. And then I wanted to know how history evolved. How one event led to another.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
