Five Sources

Twisted VoyagerWe’ve been reading up on Supreme Court cases involving “student rights” in one of my classes. Most of the readings and videos have involved the biggies – student speech, mostly, and some search and seizure. I recently asked them to pick a topic related to student rights in school, and of course offered a list of possibilities for those not particularly motivated to come up with their own. 

We’re not looking to do a serious research paper at this level. Mostly, I want us to go through the motions of gathering information, understanding the issues, and recognizing the difference between an informational or expository text (“here’s the current law about X, plus examples”) and a persuasive or rhetorical text (“here’s what the law or policy should be, and here’s why”).

The first day was all groundwork – some videos summarizing various cases and a little discussion about possible topics. Day two was intended to be straightforward, but essential. Students needed to come up with FIVE SOURCES they were going to use for information about their topic. Books or periodicals would be fine, but realistically I knew we were talking websites. I briefly addressed “valid” vs. “invalid” sources, but for something like this I wasn’t overly picky. 

Honestly, there are SO many “student rights” sites out there, so many news stories citing various court cases and issues, so many legal advocacy sites with sections about students and education, it should be difficult NOT to find valid sources of information at the level I’m looking for. I figured most would be done in 15-20 minutes. I asked them to email me their five links or share a Google Doc (for easier follow-up on their part) and we’d discuss their topic and sources before they move on. 

We’re not doing a doctoral thesis here; we’re trying to learn whether or not dress codes are sexist or when principals can search your backpack. I was only taking it slow because this foundational step was so important. 

Sources, Shmorces…

By the next day, I only had a handful of completions. By itself that wasn’t so shocking; my students aren’t always a particularly self-motivated group. But I’d watched them working, and writing. I’d overheard what sounded like productive, on-topic discussions. I knew the product I was asking for was NOT all that demanding, and yet…? 

I started taking a closer look at all the activity I thought I’d observed. 

Several were overdoing it – summarizing entire web pages or the issues covered on each. That’s a good problem to have; obviously, they need to eventually read the information in their sources. Most, however, had simply started writing about their topic – what they thought, why this or that policy was unjust, ect. They were on fire! Except… they weren’t doing the assignment. 

“Looks like you have a lot to say. That’s good. But… where are your five sources?”

“My what?”

Now, this is something many educators will immediately recognize. You can explain something quite explicitly while the same instructions are projected on the screen behind you and in large font on the paper in front of them. You can restate those same directions in multiple ways, give examples, and make sure they know how to refer back to them if necessary. Ten minutes after you turn them loose to work, a third of them haven’t started because they have no idea what they’re supposed to do. Of those, several are already mad that you never explain anything. 

It’s not personal. You get used to it. 

But this wasn’t silent confusion. These kids were writing! Several were quite emotional. Most responded with annoyance and confusion when I tried to steer them back to those FIVE SOURCES. Save what you’ve written! You might decide to use it. But first, we need to know stuff. What does the Constitution SAY? What have the courts already DECIDED? We can agree with it or disagree, advocate or accept, but we must start with existing KNOWLEDGE on which to build our opinions!

Their bewilderment and frustration were palpable. BUT I ALREADY KNOW WHAT I WANT TO SAY! Yes, I see that – and I want for you to be able to say it. I’m just asking that these strong opinions of yours begin with some facts and information. 

Eventually, I thought they’d heard me. Maybe I hadn’t explained it as well as I thought the first day. They mutter what passes for agreement. I walk on. 

And you know what comes next. 

Ground Fog Day

Day Three. We should be outlining by now. Discussing topic sentences and supporting details. Instead, I’m walking around the room trying to figure out why we’re still not turning in those FIVE SOURCES. One pair (I finally caved on letting them work together) has given me a list of homepages – forbes.com, vox.com, etc. I try to explain that I need the actual URLs of the specific articles, which prompts them to sulk and refuse to do anymore that day. Another gives me a handwritten list of very long URLs, which I suppose technically meets the requirements, but WHO DOES THAT AND WHY?!?!

Mostly, however, it’s a brand new start in all the worst ways. What are we doing again? So we have to do research papers? Can I use the essay on Vikings I did for World History first semester? Again I’m left referring back to the same very basic instructions… and insisting they need FIVE SOURCES. Sources? For what? How many? Five?! So any five websites about anything? Mister, you’re not explaining this very well. 

Most are genuinely stuck. Bewildered. Stymied. Buffy and Willow and Xander, wrestling with Spike’s assertion that Ben IS Glory and Glory IS Ben. There’s simply too much dark magic in play to allow their brains to grasp – let alone retain – such madness. FIVE SOURCES? Related to a student right of our choice? So what are those posted directions and samples for? What are we doing again? 

Lost Connections

Most educators know how bewildering kids can be. We love them anyway, and it’s not usually the same from day to day or from student to student. In this particular case, however, I’m convinced that the sticking point was more than usual teenage cluelessness. I think it’s the nature of the requirement triggering the crisis. I might as well have asked them to recalibrate their heartbeats to produce more of a polka rhythm, or required them to eat only color and write with one-dimensional fruit. Starting today, work will only be accepted in Morse Code. Grades are determined by the square root of your age as a negative number divided by zero. And informational writing must be supported by FIVE SOURCES. 

Information. Existing facts. Building our arguments on knowledge and reason. Assume a common foundation of documented truth and empirical understanding. Know stuff FIRST. Then feel. Then rant. Then insist, explain, or decry. 

That’s just not how we do things anymore, is it? They’re high school freshmen – I’m not mad at any of them or despondent over the process. Every lesson has its unexpected wrinkles, and they’re not always the same from year to year or class to class. But I don’t think they’re alone in their bewilderment. If one of our goals in public education is to prepare students for the “real world,” I’m not even sure that insisting on facts and reality as the foundation of their informational or persuasive writing is doing them any favors. Facts and reality don’t seem to carry much weight these days. They get in the way of too many emotions, agendas, and belief systems. 

Why Ruin It With Reality?

We’ve watched over the years as our primary social and political arguments have shifted from disagreements over methodology (“Which approach is most likely to accomplish the goals we largely share?”) to tribal warfare over basic reality (“Did Trump lose the election due to fraud? Is violent overthrow of democracy a valid form of peaceful political protest? ARE BIRDS EVEN REAL?”) Reaching across the aisle has become more and more like a mid-season Star Trek episode; someone always ends up in a different time-space continuum. Emotions are strong, and tied firmly to belief, and religion, and tribal associations, and convictions regarding values and one’s own sense of self. What they don’t seem overly concerned with is objective reality. 

My kids will eventually give me those FIVE SOURCES, but at the moment they’re products of the times in which they live. It’s legitimately difficult for them to fathom the idea that their opinions and emotions should at least take facts, history, and reality into account. It’s not just that they don’t want to do it – they can’t easily get their heads around why anyone would expect such a thing. My instructions are inconvenient and irrational – the bizarre babblings of a madman. “FIVE SOURCES,” he says. Honestly, he won’t shut up about it. Cleary he doesn’t understand – I ALREADY HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THIS. Why would we slow all that down, complicate my position with these… these… what did you call them again? “Facts”? 

I realize it’s old school. Outdated. Perhaps even detrimental to their future success. But we’re going to get those FIVE SOURCES before moving forward if it takes all month and nearly kills us all. I can’t do anything about the rest of the country, but for now… THIS group is going to at least START with facts and reality. Where they go next is entirely up to them.

As Many As Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

SloMo Super PatriotIt’s generally much easier to spot the fallacy and irrationality in others than to be truly aware of our own. While most of us will confess to such imperfections in theory, we rarely accept specific examples when pointed out to us about ourselves.

Recognizing them in the culture around us is a start, however. It’s part of that whole “critical thinking” stuff we like to talk about so often in education (often without having a clear idea what, exactly, we mean). It’s not enough to point and yell “GASLIGHTING!” whenever you’re pretty sure someone’s full of it. Intellectual honestly – not to mention our own internal clarity and peace of mind – requires breaking down just what it is we think is happening.

It also means being open to others pointing out flaws in our assertions and analysis. Personally, I hate that part.

With that in mind, there’s a line of rationalization that’s been bugging me for a long time. It’s been difficult, however, to put it into words – which is usually a sign I’m not entirely clear on what’s going on, either with the irrational assertions themselves or with my reactions to them. The pattern suddenly clicked for me this morning, however, and I’d like to share in hopes maybe you’ve noticed some version of this yourself.

“Me” is me in the oversimplified dialogue below. “CA” is any conservative acquaintance I have who feels compelled to set me straight on things. CA may not have right-wing gaslighting intent. They’re a caricaturization I’m using to make a point and convey an experience. No need getting your red, white, and blue panties in a wad. I don’t have anyone in particular in mind – just the ideologies and mindsets currently making me crazy.

Me: I’m greatly troubled by this terrible thing conservatives are doing right now. It violates several foundational principles of our nation and who we claim to be.

CA: You’re overreacting. Your emotional response suggests they’re doing this horrible thing at a level of 8 or 9, when in reality, they’re only doing it at a 3 or 4 and telling their followers it’s an 8 or 9.

Me: So it’s their supporters who are horrible people? For wanting them to do these terrible things more effectively?

CA: No, Muttonhead. most of their minions don’t support terrible things. They only go along with them because they think what the other side is going to do is far worse. You’re demonizing conservative voters by acting like they support what their representatives claim to do in their name.

Me: So, which is it? Are conservative voters corrupt for demanding (or at least going along with) these terrible things or are conservative leaders corrupt for doing them even though their voters would prefer another way?

CA: Neither. The leaders have to do what their constituents want, so they can’t be blamed. The voters have to choose between the options given to them, so they’re not responsible. The real problem is you and the way you keep trying to assign blame and motives which aren’t there.

Me: I… I’m just not OK with this. The fact is, these really bad things are happening and too many conservatives are pretending they’re OK.

CA: You just don’t understand history. Both sides do these sorts of horrible things. They always have. Here are some examples from over the years of things I consider ethically and politically equivalent to what you’re complaining about now. You shouldn’t get so worked up about what’s happening now because it’s just how things are and forever have been. It’s how power and politics have always worked in the U.S.

Me: So you’re saying that despite our lofty ideals, in reality we’ve always been a nation of horrible things? We’re fundamentally like this and always have been?

CA: Oh my god, you and your Critical Race Theory, anti-American revisionist nonsense! America is the greatest country in the history of the world! Any minor flaws we may have had were resolved long ago. Can you not focus on the progress we’ve made? And look at our proclaimed ideals! Are you telling me they’re not superior to anything else mankind has come up with in the past several thousand years?

Me: But… those are the ideals I’m talking about. The ones we’re not living up to. We pride ourselves on reaching to become the people described in the Declaration of Independence, the “City on a Hill” sermon, and the Bill of Rights. That’s my whole point. When we tolerate (or support) the terrible things, we’re turning out backs on those ideals. We’re going backward.

CA: But we always have, so it doesn’t count. Besides, both sides do it exactly equally. Mathematically, that means they cancel one another out.

Me: So we’re really this bad? All of us? And always have been?

CA: Ridiculous. I can’t believe you work with young people when you have so much hostility towards the U.S.A. (*starts humming Lee Greenwood*)

Me: I feel like we’re going in circles here…

CA: And we just get better and better! That’s why we have to mandate so much patriotism and American Exceptionalism in our schools and sporting events, so people will spontaneously feel it!

Me: But we’re not getting closer to fulfilling them. We’re violating them for selfish, horrible reasons.

CA: Just like always. It never changes, so calm down. That’s why it’s not a big deal.

Me: Yeah, we’re definitely going in circles now.

CA: Just like we always have, so it’s OK! Both sides do!

Me: But I have to support the idea that we’re doing great?

CA: WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA? This is why we need more vouchers. On all sides! 

Me: *brain explodes*

So, help me out. What am I missing here? Am I being unfair, or have you experienced this as well? I particularly welcome conservative responses as long as you play nice. Even if the other way is how we’ve always done it and both sides are just as bad.  

Can You Teach Us?

Darth TeacherPublic education has been overlooking – or worse, neglecting – a golden opportunity to improve. It’s not only been right in front of us all along, it’s been kicking us and taking our lunch money! And yet, somehow, where we should have recognized an opportunity, all we’ve seen is a competitor. In some cases, maybe even a threat.  

It’s like we don’t actually WANT to teach gooder. I assume this is largely due to the various teachers’ unions and Hillary Clinton’s personal email server.  

We’ve been told for several decades now that “school choice,” vouchers, educational “savings” accounts, etc., are essential for students to have access to a truly quality education, and that a little healthy competition will make us all better. I, for one, have been guilty of pushing back against this rhetoric. I’ve even been so cynical as to suggest ulterior motives by many of those involved (for which I assure you I now have all sorts of lingering guilt). But as Indiana dramatically expands their various “choice” initiatives and other red states do the same, I believe it’s time to change our approach.  

It’s time to seek the guidance of the masters. It’s time to admit our own shortcomings and failures and learn from those who’ve accomplished so much. It’s not selling out, kids – it’s buying in. Besides, there’s nothing for me here now. I want to learn the ways of the Choice and become highly qualified like you. There’s still good in me. Surely you can sense it. 

Teach us.  

Learning The Ways Of The Choice 

The primary argument for “school choice” is that the quality of the education is just plain better. The teachers are better. The administration is better. The system is organized more efficiently. The curriculum is more coherent and whole. The atmosphere simply reeks of excellence.  

It’s easy to lose sight of this because those of us on the pro-“destroying the future” side of things have been too long distracted by this crazy idea that private schools achieve their goals primarily by picking and choosing which students they want on their rosters and turning away the rest. We’ve quibbled over many institutions’ focus on religious dogma, questionable science, distorted or overly selective history, and a tendency to blame everything from poverty to skin tone on some combination of personal failure and the sins of Cain. We’ve let ourselves become overly focused on the relative lack of improvement demonstrated year after year in “educational outputs” instead of zeroing in on the handful of truly impressive outliers here and there who get cited in all the brochures.  

In short, we’ve been too cynical. Let’s try assuming the best about our cohorts in the world of private religious schooling, shall we? 

I’m Here To Rescue You 

If it’s about better teaching, then please – come train us. Show us your ways. It has to be better than most of the “professional development” to which we’re usually subjected. I’ll even pay attention and do the activities – I promise! 

If it’s about better school administration, then come run a building or two for us. The pay has to be better, and if there’s such a thing as “doing the Lord’s work,” then surely this qualifies. Come show us how to reduce waste and establish that culture of excellence or whatever. We even promise not to pull the “union won’t let you” card out for the first year or two.  

If it’s about better policies, then that’s easy. Just email us a PDF and we’ll gladly give it a go. Anything conflicting with state requirements should be simple enough to fix. If all of these legislators are as committed to educational excellence as they keep insisting (particularly when it involves more “freedom” and greater “choice”), surely they’d be willing to waive a statute or two. Or 3,497.  

If it’s about curriculum, we’ll gladly pay for a copy. We’re apparently flush with wasted cash here in the world of public education. It would no doubt be an improvement, I assure you. Our administration buys some weird stuff already and your standards can’t be any worse than “Teach Like A Mongol Barbarian” or “Writing Through Excellence In Compassionate Modal Communication Across The Curriculum For Everyone!”  

If it’s about facilities, well… I guess that depends on what we’re missing. Apparently we waste all kinds of resources on overstaffing and glossy copy paper and what not – maybe cutting back a little on the bad stuff would free up some funds. If not, there’s always another fundraiser pushing overpriced M&Ms on kids. Or Kickstarter.  

In short, we’re ready. Come show us how to teach our students as effectively as you teach yours. Come show us how to be more committed, less wasteful, and become overall better people both personally and professionally. You win. We’re mediocre and whiney. You’re talented and full of passion. Help us, Obi-Wan Kenobi – you’re our only hope. 

The Terminally Exhausted Part 

There is one tiny little downside to this plan: it will never happen. And even if it did, it would never work. 

Maybe that’s two tiny little downsides.  

The problem isn’t that private school teachers aren’t any good at what they do. Many of them are amazing. The problem is that so are many public school educators. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, that’s not really the issue. Nor is it about curriculum or facilities or administration.  

When private schools have superior outcomes, you’ll generally find they started with very different students than the public school they’re supposed to be “inspiring” down the road. That’s not even necessarily a bad thing. The best and brightest need good teachers just like everyone else. They’re not always easier to teach or intrinsically motivated to learn. As any teacher of advanced students (public or private) can assure you, “top” kids are just as much work as “bottom” kids – just in different ways.  

But let’s stop pretending it’s an accomplishment to inherit upper middle class white kids from two-parent families whose lives have been full of travel and books and engaging conversation and art and expectations and consistency. Let’s stop pretending that’s somehow not one of the biggest draws of private schooling – the chance to have your elite little darling surrounded by and shaped by other folks’ elite darlings. We see it in AP or IB classes in public schools. We see it in neighborhoods in different parts of town. We see it in the churches we choose to attend and the stores in which we choose to shop. We can debate whether it’s ethically “right” or “wrong,” but only if we start by being honest about this very human tendency we’re indulging. 

Let’s stop pretending that “choice” is about improving “educational outcomes” for everyone. Sure, that fits a certain school of capitalistic thought – but after decades of spouting the admittedly catchy rhetoric that goes along with it, it turns out it simply doesn’t work in any sort of predictable or consistent way. The vast majority of the time, “school choice” is about getting US away from THEM, whether the distinction is racial, economic, or religious. (That’s also why it’s usually the schools that have their choice of students; not students who have a true choice of schools.) Personally, I think it undercuts one of the primary functions of public education if we allow large segments of the community to pull their children into little enclaves and teach them stuff that runs against the goals and success of the larger society. But we can’t even have that argument unless we start being honest with each other (and ourselves) about what we want and why we make the choices we do.  

The X-Files Problem 

One of the most frustrating premises of the classic “X-Files” series was that not only was the truth “out there,” but there were numerous individuals fully aware of it who simply wouldn’t tell the rest of us. Scully and Muldar were working not only against aliens, freaks, and the elusive nature of reality – they were being taunted by their own government who could have saved all sorts of time and money if they’d simply sent them a few PDF summaries of how things really worked.  

It’s foolish to pretend that the secret to education is out there – the unified learning theory that reaches all students in all situations and imparts all the knowledge and skills we’d like if only we were willing to push the “GO” button. There are good ideas and bad, stuff that works in many situations with many different types of kids and stuff that’s pretty stupid no matter where it’s tried. There are teachers working wonders in impossible situations and entire districts coasting along mired in mediocrity and bureaucracy. And yes, there are private schools doing a much better job with challenging populations than their public counterpart down the street. 

There are legit arguments to be had about “school choice” when it comes to private schools willing to teach a largely secular curriculum to students very much like those attending the local public schools and take responsibility for both the results and how they treat their students in order to make it happen. We pretend we’re having them all the time. 

Usually we’re not. 

If “school choice” is of genuine benefit to all students, it should be easy to both document and replicate – neither of which seems to be happening much. If it’s not, the conversation should be about whether or not there are other good reasons to keep doing it. We can’t have that discussion, however, until all parties are willing to get a little more honest with themselves about what they’re actually doing and why they’re doing it.

RELATED POST: 5 Bad Assumptions Behind Education Reform

RELATED POST: Welcome To Atheist School!

RELATED POST: To Sleep, Perchance To Sue…

I’m Not Sure I Want My Students To Succeed

UbermenschI’m not sure I want my students to succeed.

How’s that for an attention-grabber? Now I’ll skillfully jump back and lay the foundation for such an outrageous claim and hope it’s enough to keep you reading until we reach it again further on.

Four-Point Scale or Back Hoe?

The question of how to grade, what to grade, or even IF to grade isn’t exactly new in the world of public education. Sometimes it’s set by building or district policy (although enforcement is problematic at best). Other times it’s at least discussed within departments. By and large, however, it’s something no two teachers seem to do quite the same.

Many of the differences are cosmetic. Categories or total points? Are quizzes worth 10% or are they worth way more points than daily work and the math ends up with pretty much the same results? Other differences are philosophical. Completion or accuracy? Effort or quality? Improvement or achievement?

Things quickly get messy. If I grade entirely on objective standards, the kid who rarely shows up and never participates but has a great memory might pull a solid ‘B’ in my class without actually learning anything or becoming less odious to the world at large. The girl who does everything I ask and shows massive improvement still fails if she started off with less knowledge and fewer skills. On the other hand, points for effort sometimes seems like we’re rewarding mediocrity – or worse, giving pity points to kids who have no business moving up a level academically.

In other words, you don’t have to go very far before you realize several things about grades in high school. First, they don’t usually mean everything we hope and pretend they mean – particularly not from one class to another. Second, they’re almost impossible to get rid of. They’re so baked into the system that even districts bold enough to try alternatives usually end up using some form of an A – F, 4.0 scale when communicating with the state or post-secondary institutions.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, any discussion of grades or grading quickly becomes a discussion about priorities and overall teaching philosophy as well. It reveals our assumptions about kids, about education, about “the system,” and about our own ability to accurately observe and assess specific skills or chunks of learnin’ in otherwise complicated beings – teenagers.

Our Rubric, Which Art From Heaven…

I’ve worked with amazing educators who believed that a 59.4% was the highest ‘F’ you could earn, so congrats on that. This wasn’t some sort of revenge for being bullied as a child; it reflected a larger conviction regarding expectations, opportunity and responsibility. I’ve heard anecdotes about teachers who announce on Day One that everyone’s getting an ‘A’, so let’s just focus on learning! I can’t imagine this actually working very often, but it’s not founded on laziness; it’s founded on a set of ideals about what education should look like.

Emphasizing quizzes and tests over daily work is more than a calculation; it reflects a philosophy about how things work (or should). The opposite is equally true. Prioritizing completion and effort and showing up every day over performance on formal assessments is about underlying beliefs. The whole “standards-based grading” movement is merely a variation on this theme – are we actually measuring whatever it is we think they’re supposed to be learning?

This means, of course, that we can’t really talk about grading until we talk about what it is we’re trying to measure. This is standard edu-blogging clickbait; I’m not breaking any new ground here. But it’s always worth revisiting the question of what, exactly, it is we think we’re supposed to be teaching. Only then can we wrestle with whether or not our grades actually correlate.

Birth of the Blue

My very first blog post opened this way:

If you want to completely derail any meeting of three or more educators – teachers, administrators, curriculum coordinators, outside consultants, or whatever – ask what our priorities should be.

You know, as educators – what are our priorities for the kids? It’s hard to make a good plan without a clear target, so what are we trying to accomplish – you know, ideally?

It was a relatively brief post (hard to imagine now, I know) addressing the difficulty of actually narrowing down our goals as educators. Do we prioritize content? Academic skills? Mindset? Grit? Job skills? Personal hygiene? The ability to work with others? Reading? Writing? Critical thinking? Citizenship? Not putting your entire email in the subject line?

Schools are expected to be at least three dozen different things simultaneously, plus whatever else people think of along the way. (That way, no matter how many things we’re doing well, there are always something for which we can be labeled complete and total failures.) Let’s assume we’re already doing our best with legislative mandates and district goals. These things are generally insufficient, however, to shape the day-to-day details of HOW we teach, let alone WHY we teach.

That’s what I’m wrestling with at the moment.

Success Secession

One of the top 3 or 4 reasons commonly given by teachers for why we do what we do is our desire that students succeed – not just in our classes, but in the so-called “real world.” We have this idea that success outside of school requires the sorts of mindsets and skills we traditionally value. Personal responsibility. Professional appearance. Work ethic. Good citizenship. Effective collaboration. Subject knowledge. Appreciating other points of view. Communication skills. Not smelling weird all the time.

I’m not sure these skills are as universally useful as we’d like to think.

I love Amazon, but is Jeff Bezos insanely rich because of how much personal responsibility he takes for his employees or his commitment to interacting fairly with other entrepreneurs? Does Mark Zuckerberg’s success demonstrate a commitment to good citizenship, honesty, or owning one’s choices? Are the Koch Brothers doing so well because of how respectfully they tolerate other points of view, or is it mostly their belief in democracy and the fundamental equality of all citizens?

Was Donald Trump elected President because of his work ethic, or was it more about his impressive command of relevant facts? Has he been so wildly influential because of his professional communication skills and ability to work well with others, or because he’s learned to show up on time and meet deadlines? The most powerful individual in the world has absolutely none of the skills or basic knowledge we push in public education – and shows zero interest in learning any of it. He is the personification of printing off your essay from Wikipedia then arguing vehemently that you wrote it even though the URL is still at the bottom of every page. The only difference is that Trump essentially became valedictorian as a result and half the school board is now questioning whether your teaching certificate is even real.

He may be the most outlandish example, but he’s hardly alone in his approach.

Studies suggest that overly confident (but largely incompetent) men get promoted far more often than counterparts who actually know stuff and demonstrate effectiveness at their jobs. It’s increasingly difficult to argue that political leadership requires real historic or legal understanding. Our cultural and political trend-setters and thought-leaders may include a few of the best-and-brightest, but they’re hardly the norm. Classrooms still hold up Abraham Lincoln and MLK as American heroes, but real success stories in the 21st century are about Übermensch more than emancipation.

“I have a scheme today… Me at last, me at least, like God Almighty, all for me at last!”

The Better Angels of Our Pedagogy

If we really want our students to be successful, perhaps we should be teaching them complete and total shamelessness – how standards, ethics, or consistency are merely chains to hold them back. We could offer lessons in race-baiting, gas-lighting, and general sophistry. We could teach them how to focus so intently on money and power that they don’t care who they use up or discard to get there, and that legal limitations are for poor people. At the very least, no child should be given a high school diploma without first demonstrating basic competence in manipulating the fears and insecurities of others to sell products or secure influence.

I’m not suggesting that all business owners are evil – merely that being responsible and smart and hard-working aren’t exactly requirements for success in the 21st century. (They may actually be disadvantages if taken too seriously.) Aren’t we doing our students a severe disservice if we refuse to be honest or practical about what success too often looks like in the “real world”?

The alternative, of course, is to continue inflicting our own narrow, idealistic views of how things should work, in hopes they might eventually come true. If that’s what we decide, that’s fine, but let’s be honest about what we’re doing. If what we’re actually teaching is a higher ideal for how society could be, and how capitalism could work, and what success could look like, let’s own that instead of hiding behind “real world” rhetoric. We may not win that argument, but we’ll at least be striving for something better.

I don’t love the real world at the moment. I don’t want to be responsible for preparing kids to “succeed” in it if that means they become more like those currently at the top. I’m willing to risk criticism from the powers-that-be and the perpetually victimized right wing to promote a higher ideal – one built on our founding documents and our national potential more than our Fortune 500 or modern politics.

So… I guess I do want my kids to succeed. I’d just like them to first question what they believe counts as “success.”

RELATED POST: 5 Bad Assumptions Behind ‘Education Reform’

RELATED POST: Just Teach The Curriculum (Leave That Other Stuff At Home)

Political Issues In Public Education – A Guide For Beginners

Education & PoliticsIt’s election time again, and – in some places, at least – education-related disputes are once again all over social media and the local news. Given that it’s rare for such a traditional, local issue to break through our current national insanity, some of you might be wondering just what it is all these teachers keep whining about and why no one can presumably fix what seem to be pretty basic concerns.

None of these are intended as comprehensive or especially detailed, nor will they apply in every local variation of every argument. My hope, however, is that you’ll find them useful as a starting place for further research if you discover you care about those specifics, or as enough information to decipher those who ARE worked up and insist on talking about this stuff over and over and over and over…

Why are so many teachers opposed to testing? What’s wrong with accountability?

It can sometimes be difficult to narrow down exactly what it is states and taxpayers want public education to accomplish (not to mention the things we intrinsically value as educators). Prepare children for college, prepare them for the workforce, prepare them to be happy, personally fulfilled adults, teach them to be useful citizens of a voting republic, teach them character and personal responsibility, teach them to read, to think, to care, to problem-solve, to adapt, and give them grit, hope, respect for authority, and a deep personal sense of security and meaning in a fallen world.

Oh, and algebra – they need to know algebra.

Of these (and there are often more, depending on who’s in the state legislature that year), very few are easy to measure objectively, let alone assess via multiple choice questions. The most important ones certainly aren’t. How does an institution scientifically measure whether or not particular kids are more or less prepared for the profession of their choice in May than they were in August, or whether or not they better grasp the importance of informed voting, or even to what extent they’ve grown in terms of taking personal responsibility or refusing to crumble in the face of adversity?

Even the more traditionally academic stuff is hard to evaluate on a mass scale. Sit a kid in front of me and have them read a passage and discuss or explain it, and in ten minutes I’ll have a pretty good idea of their reading ability, processing strengths and weaknesses, etc. A multiple choice quiz over the passage, on the other hand, might tell me how well they manage short-term recall of mundane details, but isn’t very good at measuring whether they understand those details or can explain why they matter. It certainly gives no room for alternate approaches or explanations of anything important.

But it DOES give us what looks like an objective number of “right” and “wrong” answers. And it can be tallied by a machine. It measures the stuff it can easily measure – not the stuff we’d all largely agree is WAY more essential.

We can’t measure what’s important, so we prioritize what looks measurable.

In other words, your English teacher isn’t obsessed with the minutiae of grammar because that’s what makes great literature worth reading; he’s obsessed with grammar because that’s a random slice of reading and writing that we can kind of measure via multiple choice. His job performance isn’t measured by whether or not you become a better reader (whatever that might involve in your particular case) but on how consistently you and your classmates properly identify a form of speech chosen by a testing service from Wisconsin.

There are other issues – tests tend to measure kids’ socio-economic status far more consistently than they do anything actually happening (or not) at school. Some are racially biased in subtle but critical ways. Many of them just suck. But that’s all secondary to the larger issue – very little worth learning can be evaluated by Scantron.

Why don’t schools stick to the basics – the 3 R’s of Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic? What’s with the radical liberal agenda and all the touchy-feely stuff?

Most schools certainly want their kids to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic. Beyond that, we enter into the same dilemma reference above – no one can seem to agree on just what it is they want public education to DO. The same legislators who complain about Algebra scores devote endless legislation to requirements having nothing to do with academic progress. Local employers want kids to have specific job skills or foundational knowledge beyond the 3 R’s. And even parents generally hostile towards public education see the inherent value in kids being involved in sports, band, theater, etc. (The Home Schoolers are constantly suing to get their kid on the baseball team with a school-provided uniform.)

But beyond that, the most fundamental reason schools get involved in counseling, health care, clothes closets, basic nutrition, family services, restorative justice, pregnancy prevention, anger management, or whatever is because – spoiler alert – a pretty substantial number of kids show up to school not actually caring all that much about those Algebra scores. Or grammar. Or test scores. Or history.

Yes, we could just fail them all – but that’s not the motivator you might wish it were. For every kid hyper-focused on her GPA (“That quiz brought me down to a 104%!! Can I retake it!??!”) there are two who for whatever reasons couldn’t care less – or, if they do care in theory, aren’t able to translate that concern into daily choices.

We can call home, but there’s a pretty strong correlation between parents who are unavailable or otherwise not particularly helpful in motivating their kids and kids who are unmotivated. That’s not an excuse, or an attack, or grumpy-old-teacher-excuses – it’s just a fact of the gig.

So we try to figure out why. Usually it’s because they have other things on their minds. Stuff that can only be addressed via counseling. Or health care. Or restorative justice. Or –

You get the idea.

And yes, we also often genuinely care. Some of us are a bit touchy-feely. But even the most pragmatic and least dramatic among us would agree that if we’re going to get test scores up, or get them prepared for locally available jobs, or grow informed voters, or whatever, we often have to address whatever else is in the way before they’ll actually read that chapter about the New Deal.

What’s wrong with school choice? Vouchers? Charters? Doesn’t that money belong to the parents, who should be able to use it any way they think best?

This one can get messy rather quickly. I’m not sure I can adequately cover the many layers of interwoven issues while sticking to the goal of this particular ‘guide’. What I can do, however, is share the basic arguments you’re most likely to encounter. 

The first and perhaps largest problem with “school choice” is the term itself. It suggests that any concerned parent can enroll their child anywhere they like – but they can’t. Even if your state gives you a voucher for what they’d have spent on your kid in a public school, even if you’re surrounded by quality options, the final decision about your child is entirely in the hands of the chosen institution. They can take him, reject him, or take him until he has a bad week then boot him without cause.

If you’re fairly affluent, white, with a stable family background and strong academic and behavior record, you’ll probably be fine. Lots of schools want you on their rosters – and websites – and scoring summaries. For many families, this isn’t a bug so much as a feature – the primary benefit of “school choice” is that it allows kids from families “like us” to get away from kids “like them.” We can’t mandate loving your neighbor, but neither can we completely avoid their existence or influence, or somehow escape impacting them in return.

The second problem is the impact on public schools. As private institutions skim off their top choices, your local school now has less money and an increased percentage of high-needs students. Whatever economies of scale were making it possible to give the entire range of them a decent education before are reduced dramatically – it’s difficult to fire two-thirds of a bus driver or maintain a building at three-quarters what you did before. In short, the need increases while resources are diverted elsewhere.

Note that these are NOT individual resources – that’s wordplay. Public resources – tax dollars, paid by everyone for the benefit of the whole. The ‘social contract’ on which society, even red-white-and-blue society, is built. I don’t pay state and local taxes so that MY kid gets a decent education; I pay them so I can live in a society filled with people who have a decent education, obey laws agreed upon by a reasonably coherent populace, work as part of a semi-rational economy, and partake in a civilization which knows its own history, can read and write, and considers basic math and science when making major decisions.

That brings us to the third problem, which is that most of these other school “options” aren’t held to the same standards or expectations as public schools. That makes rhetoric about “competition” rather disingenuous.

In public schools, science must be treated as a real thing. History has established standards determining whether or not it’s legit. Teachers have to pass state certifications. Right-wing talking points to the contrary, we’re not all human refuse just making it up as we go because we don’t want to get real jobs.

Public schools have to at least attempt to educate students in a publically agreed-upon and legislatively mandated curriculum while observing endless protections, prohibitions, guidelines, and red tape. We have to take ALL of them, whatever their issues, whatever their needs, whatever their circumstances – including those left without a school when their charter closes mid-year or their private religious school kicks them out for getting pregnant or coming out as gay.

The final problem is that “choice” doesn’t actually improve education in any meaningful ways. Most private schools aren’t demonstrably better than public schools at anything measurable (see issues with that above) when comparing students from similar backgrounds and characteristics. Charter schools overall perform worse. Public schools don’t get “better” due to competition; the very idea suggests they aren’t really trying very hard to begin with and need something to “motivate” them to try to teach those kids up real good this time!

In short, the entire premise of school improvement via competition is a deception built on pruned statistics and rhetorical smoke and mirrors. Maybe it should work. Maybe in some circumstances it could work. But so far, taken as a whole, it doesn’t work.

Feel free to suggest other topics for the guide below, as well as linking to your favorite blog posts from around the web which dive into some of these issues in greater detail. And vote, dammit.