Join a Hot Education Debate!

Last week, I appeared on NPR's "Diane Rehm Show" alongside National Book Award-winning education writer Jonathan Kozol to discuss our new books and the issues facing new teachers. Assistant Secretary of Education Doug Mesecar joined us on the program, offering unflinching support for No Child Left Behind, the sweeping federal legislation that Mr. Kozol and I feel does more harm than good.

The discussion was quite illuminating, as conversations among people with conflicting beliefs often are. One listener emailed: "This is blood-boiling radio!" (Listen to the entire broadcast here.)

I received a highly favorable response after the show from people who contacted me. One conservative blogger, known as The Cultural Strategist, however, was not so happy, and has since posted on his site a somewhat vitriolic list of questions for me. All of the questions, along with my answers, are below. Again, I believe it's illuminating and important to have back-and-forths between people whose opinions differ.

Let's see some action in the comments section!

CULTURAL STRATEGIST: Mr. Brown - I see that YOU left the majority minority school that you referenced as a "jungle" after only one year for an elite private school. Mr. Brown -- could you detail your prior experiences with people of color prior to your teaching assignment? Did culture shock and your references to the "white norm" come into play in your discomfort with this situation?

DAN BROWN: First of all, I was using the term "blackboard jungle" as a pop culture reference to the book and movie from the 1950s (in which nearly all the students were white). If you are insinuating that I was calling the school a "jungle" for racial reasons, you are mistaken.

At age 22, I had very few experiences in environments where the majority population was people of color. I grew up in suburban New Jersey. I never used the phrase "white norm," though. It was certainly a big change to come to work every day in an environment plagued by poverty.

CULTURAL STRATEGIST: You said that your goal was to "give back" to society. You departed after one year to teach school kids that would succeed without your help. Do you feel that you have betrayed your original mission in any way?

DAN BROWN: I feel very conflicted about leaving the inner-city school. In no way do I see myself as some kind of "hero teacher" or anything like that. I did, however, care very much about working with my students in the Bronx but, for a host of reasons that are detailed in my book, it became untenable for me to stay there. Right now I am earning a teaching master's degree, so that when I work with inner-city students again -- something I plan to do -- I will be much better prepared and equipped to help them. A significant reason that I wrote The Great Expectations School is to tell the story of why passionate, dedicated teachers flee the inner-city after only a short stay.

In fact, Susan Fuhrman, the president of Teachers College, Columbia University (a top-ranked graduate school for education in the U.S.) endorsed my book as: "A vivid portrait of the teacher retention challenge. Talented beginners often find the challenges overwhelming and the support lacking. Each student in Dan's class becomes someone the reader cares about -- they all deserve the finest teachers and those teachers deserve a system that supports them..."

CULTURAL STRATEGIST: Mr. Brown - you mentioned that one particular student had much difficulty at home and you reached out to him and allowed him to open up. At the end of your engagement he was able to write a story and do poetry but he failed the standardized test. Mr. Brown -- if you were a patient of this person as he went on to become a professional -- would you make use of his services if your life or freedoms depended on it being that he was able to satisfy you due to your "up close and personal" contact with you but he was not able to pass the standardized test just as a lawyer, doctor or CPA is expected to pass. Are you really doing this kid a favor, Mr. Brown?

DAN BROWN: Thank you for asking this question. High-stakes testing is a reality in our world, and in many cases it is a useful tool. It's a good practice for a doctor to take MCATs, or a lawyer to take the LSATs and then the bar exam, to mention two professions that you brought up. These are tests that people take in their early 20s, at the earliest.

However, it is not fair or healthy to immerse children in the culture of high-stakes testing from the moment they enter school. There is a difference in what we should ask of eight- year-olds and 18-year-olds. When a child is in elementary school, it is a precious time to build foundations of literacy, logic, intellectual curiosity, and positive self-image. Poetry and stories matter. The high-stakes testing regime, I believe, works counter to strengthening these foundations in the long run. A more balanced variety of assessments can tend much more to the child's real needs.

I believe that Lito, the child you are referencing in the question above, did indeed have the potential to pass the MCATs or LSATs and to become an excellent doctor or lawyer. He was in fourth grade when I taught him, and he had many years that, if he dedicated himself, that he could use to prepare himself for professional success.

I also need to address a point that you make several times in your blog that since I was criticizing No Child Left Behind, then certainly I felt schools were better off before it. This is not true. In 2002, when NCLB was passed, urban schools needed a lot of improvement. My criticism, in short, is that No Child Left Behind is the wrong solution. It is taking us in the wrong direction. It needs to be reformed.

CULTURAL STRATEGIST: Mr. Brown -- I notice that you direct most of your commentary about the low skills that these students have upon their lot in life. You state that their parents often have low academic skills themselves and are very self-conscious about their own shortcomings. This clearly gets transfered over to the children. Mr. Brown, if we were to have you step outside your confinement as a teacher and make note of the best way to improve these children's chances for success -- would you focus on changing the SCHOOL SYSTEM or focus on changing the PARENTS and their engagements with the children from their ability to provide early childhood education back to consideration of their ability to provide for the child in the first place? Aren't we looking at a problem that is much greater than the four walls of the school, Mr. Brown?

DAN BROWN: I don't believe it is necessary to pick community reform or school reform as the singular answer to helping inner-city children break the cyclical crush of poverty. Both are essential!

Pubic schools, unlike families, however, are organs of the state. Their operating structure can change relatively quickly (as we saw with NCLB) with the passing of a law. We can make them better, and that matters.

Strengthening the fibers of families is a much more complicated issue than reforming the practices that take place in schools. However, it is a sweeping issue that must be faced, in all its facets, in order to empower people who are born into difficult situations. As a white teacher in my 20s, I recognize that I may not have all of the solutions. However, I believe cooperation across race and class lines is crucial in order to improve everyone's quality of life. Let's open lines of discussion to make this cooperation happen!

Dan Brown is the author of the new teacher memoir The Great Expectations School: A Rookie Year in the New Blackboard Jungle, released this month by Arcade Publishing.

Comments

[MBurnett]

Hey Dan-

At your book signing in New Jersey last week, in discussing the NCLB Act, you took issue with the fact that the people making the current education policies seem to forget those policies are defining the lives of actual kids. I think this attack from the Cultural Strategist is an unfortunately perfect illustration of this detached approach to education reform. I read his latest entries regarding this topic, and not once does it feel like he's considering the people, the children, at the heart of this debate. It's all about the statistics and policy and, ultimately, going to bat for his team against yours. It's so important to remember when throwing education stats around that those numbers are provided by millions of individual, living and breathing kids. Thanks for keeping that in mind in all your efforts, and for reminding us, despite being a saccharine sweet cliche, we're do this for the children.

[Purple Girl]

If you can inspire a studen to study something they love, you may encourage them to study areas that did not realize they would love. Education is to enable a person to reach their potential in the area they will be most beneficial. Everyone has a box of talents-parent & teachers have the keys
WE need to alos encourage & support parents- good jobs, healthcare, community support and the ability to reach they potential, regardless of their age. Education should be viewed as a life long pursuit. The real failure in life is the failure to try. And this should not be limited by economic benefits- encourage the arts, politcs, philosophy. Bring the parents up and provide them with their own self esteem and goals, their children will also value those concepts.
As they say "Amind is a terrible thing to waste'- not only for the individual, but their
family and our community.Promoting curiousity
and individualism are the hallmark of a great education
Live & learn need not be a statement regarding hindsight- but foresight.

[MrWashy]

Thanks, Dan! Not only did you successfully rebut some overly simplistic points and quests, but I think you also stated the view that most of us in teacher share:

"In 2002, when NCLB was passed, urban schools needed a lot of improvement. My criticism, in short, is that No Child Left Behind is the wrong solution. It is taking us in the wrong direction. It needs to be reformed."

Thanks for taking up the gauntlet on this!

[Kansas Evans]

I second this motion.

Thanks for standing up to the overly simplistic and heartless, I might add, points that were presented to you. A person's own decisions may affect the quality of life they can offer their children (and their subsequent posterity), but it should not affect what the state provides the child(ren). If the USA is to be a country worth loving, it should act "loving" towards all its citizens. Not just the ones (who aren't born yet or) whose parents (and their previous forebears) can offer than a "better" life.

[Fellowette]

I think you nailed it, Dan. As a former HS teacher in the Bronx (I too quit after a year) I have to agree with nearly all of what you say. Too bad there aren't more voices being raised like yours, with urgency, to decry the state of our public schools.