In a segment called "Waiting for Superman: Fact or Fiction?" on the BAM! Radio Network, education historian Diane Ravitch and four members of the media (including yours truly) discussed Davis Guggenheim's latest documentary, Waiting for 'Superman'.
Our host, Errol St. Clair Smith, wanted to know whether we thought the film would lead to productive discussions about how to reform public education in this country. Is there an emerging consensus in education reform today?
If so, Diane Ravitch suggested it's not a good one. She said that the reforms now being undertaken by the Obama administration aren't terribly different from reforms that date back to the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Ravitch, who's been a fierce critic of Waiting for 'Superman', says the film pushes the "conservative, right-wing [education] agenda" of the Obama administration.
Jay Mathews, of The Washington Post, disagrees. He sees many younger Democrats, even within the field of education, jumping on the Obama-Duncan bandwagon of education reform -- and so he doesn't think the agenda can be fairly labeled "conservative" or "right-wing" because those traditionally on the left are embracing it, too.
Ravitch said that she's particularly troubled by a "false issue" that Guggenheim raises in the film, the notion that "teachers alone can turn around children's performance." She conceded that this does occasionally happen, but that it's rare. Turning around how children do in school generally requires a much more comprehensive approach, which is something that the Harlem Children's Zone (featured in Waiting for 'Superman') makes clear. Teachers are vitally important -- no one denies that -- but they can't completely erase the effects of poverty (or homelessness, or lack of parenting, or insufficient healthcare and nutrition) on student achievement.
Toward the end of our discussion, Errol St. Clair Smith gave the five of us -- Jay Mathews, Diane Ravitch, Valerie Strauss, Debra Viadero and me -- a multiple-choice test on what the lasting impact of Waiting for 'Superman' would be on U.S. public education. Four of us -- all but Ravitch -- opted for choice "D," that the film would prove to be "another example that when all is said and done, much more will be said than done." (Ravitch, ever the contrarian, picked "None of the above.")
My parting thought on what U.S. education really needs was to be much more realistic in our expectations -- that is, there's no silver bullet that will magically (and quickly) cure all of our educational woes. Real reform, which is to say meaningful and lasting reform, happens incrementally much of the time. This is a reality we'd be wise to accept. The alternative is a fixation on the latest fads -- doing dozens of reforms simultaneously, but never well and never thoroughly -- which is also a recipe for lots of pretty rhetoric and superficial action but little lasting change.
Our best shot for getting better, I believe, is to recognize that small but substantial improvements over time add up. We should not discount incremental improvement. It might well take us a decade or two to have a radically better public-education system -- but the upshot is that the progress would be dramatic and durable.
Rome wasn't built in a day, as the cliché goes -- and neither were the school systems in Finland, Singapore and South Korea, which everyone holds up as models to which we should aspire.
You can listen to our entire 20-minute conversation here. What's your take on Waiting for 'Superman'? Will anyone still be talking about the film in 10 years? In five years? In 2011? Will it catalyze education reform in the United States? What reforms are our public schools most in need of?
In our local district, it's appalling how many school board members rotate on and off the board, who: a) have political aspirations; b) want a specific sport/activity for their child; c) throw school district business to their friends/cronies.
These "elected" officials are responsible for millions and millions of dollars -- and most do not have a clue about education or investment of such funds.
This is a microcosm of part of the problem. I've seen parents join the board solely to get baseball diamonds built. I've seen people change once elected -- losing their way with whatever power being a school board member brought. They hire/fire and spend.
Right now, no one is happy or thinks the system works -- not teachers, not students, not parents -- and that's a problem. Education in this country has always been a political football -- and the field is filled with people who have ulterior motives. I think it's beyond sorting out. If you look at the institution on paper, it makes little sense. It no longer works.
Kids in this country have for decades been told they're inferior to the world. Then they turn around and support the system that educates them? That's insane.
When the teachers started blaming parents, I actually pulled my child out and started home schooling him. I've been vilified by some. What? I can't possibly be as good as them? Watch me! Two of my relatives teach. They're now quite disillusioned.
The major difference from the USA that I see in Singapore, Finland and South Korea in terms of educational reform is that we prize local control. While Finland offers some local autonomy, the curriculum, methods, funding and general policies are uniform across all three countries. That means that changes to the country's system need be persuasively presented to a relatively small percentage of the population. The expression "herding cats" was coined for just such instances.
Suppose that every new weapon had to be approved for each military base, but not by the officers or the soldiers who would use it, but by an elected group in each "Army town." A soldier transferred to another base might face an entirely new set of weapons to master. Then suppose that each of these elected groups decided on the missions of their base's personnel.
No we need to organize at every level to stop this travesty. Local, state, and national. Not one vote for anyone who goes along with this destruction of our education system.
If you are reading this, you better sit down, because I bet nobody has ever thought of it before, but it's working with my kids, who are all getting great marks. I will bet this method will work for any normal child out there.
KIDS:
1) Show up every day
2) Behave yourself in class
3) Do all your homework
PARENTS
1) Make sure your kid shows up every day
2) Make sure your kid knows how to behave in class
3) Make sure your kid does his homework
I know, revolutionary!
Yeah, none of the parents are doing anything?
In our district, they wanted LESS parental involvement. It's an affluent area with highly educated parents. The teachers/administrators hate us and make it known. They don't want to be questioned! They've actually publicly called our kids, "spoiled."
We can't win. And our teachers are paid very well, too --- which all the taxpaying parents want for them.
Some things to think about and questions to answer:
Charter schools are heralded as the model to follow. Why are they so successful? Can we recreate that model in a regular public school classroom? What about taking one of the most effective charter school teachers and putting them in a public school classroom for a year to see if they can be just as successful in that environment. If they ARE successful, find out how. What do they do differently that other public school teachers aren't doing? If they AREN'T successful, find out why. What about the public school setting did the charter school teacher feel got in the way of student achievement. Lets find out the how and the why and maybe we can make some changes.
I've heard a lot about pay for performance. HOW would you go about deciding which teachers are effective and which aren't? How do the charter schools determine the effectiveness of the teachers? I can't assume it's all about test scores.
Instead of putting public school teachers (and unions) down and instead of teachers complaining that little Johnny just can't learn because his mom doesn't read to him at home, lets all gather around the table (INVITE THE TEACHERS!) to discuss the hows and the whys of effective education.
One principal passed a no cussing rule, commentators were wondering when the 'political correctness' police would arrive. I wonder if some charter schools and pvt schools do better cuz parents must commit, kids must be civil. My elementary school was great, but I could not learn in most jr high classes cuz the kids were rude.
I have seen good teachers spirits broken by lies. Having a national content is a war of progressive, conservative, historical ideology, battles over teaching small kids about transexual, gay.Some districts have elementary stuff @ Islam while nothingo @ Christianity, Buddhism, judAism or atheism.it is unconstitutional to prefer one religion over another,
Battles over ideology in books is divisive. 6 yr olds do not need to know @ lots of sex or a religion. They need to be taught to be civil to others with diff beliefs, appearances, academic ability ie- bullying is amoral and cruel. Kids are committing suicide due to bullying.