"For vs. For"

You would think they would learn. It's always disappointing when political candidates or those advocating for a political issue resort to attacking opponents rather than sticking to one's own platform. It's a sign of weakness. Keeping one's composure and calmly explaining the rationale for one's own platform can win the confidence of American people.

This is extremely difficult to do, especially when recommending change, because most people tend to choose the status quo rather than risk change, even if that change could have positive results.

The voucher debate in Utah is a good example of what can happen when sides resort to an attack tactic. More often than not in a situation such as this, the status quo wins.

There are some lessons to be learned from the Utah voucher debate:

Lesson #1: Rather than making vouchers the focus, it may have been more constructive to focus on the education of diverse learners, parental rights, teacher shortage, improving public schools, saving money, and/or some other issue.

Lesson #2: Rather than having a "for vs against" stance, a "for vs for" stance has a greater chance of a win-win. In other words, all sides of an issue present a solution platform to improve the education of diverse learners. This way, status quo is not an option. People will have to make a decision and not just vote against something because the proposed change is still fuzzy in their minds. Voting against something without having to offer an alternative solution is an easy out and doesn't take much thought.

Lesson #3: Sticking to one's own platform on how to address the issue explaining the rationale rather than attacking the other platform shows respect not only for the opposite side, but also for the American people.

Lesson #4: Trusting the American people to make a wise decision is a respectful manner that appeals to their mind as well as their heart.

These are lessons that all political candidates and those advocating for political issues might want to consider learning if we as American people are to be well served. We as the American people have a responsibility to continue to encourage that these lessons be learned through our example of words and actions.

Why Haven't We?

"We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need to do that. Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven't so far" (Edmonds, 1979, p.23).

The hard question is, "Why haven't we?" When I proposed this question, quoting Dr. Edmonds, to Linda Darling Hammond when she was in Salt Lake City, Utah for an Education Policy Forum on September 12, 2007, she responded with an enlightening and thought provoking question: "Who are the 'we'?"

I have pondered on her response, and I believe it is a very good point. It could very well be that what Walter Kelly's creation, Pogo said, applies: "We met the enemy and it is us." In other words, educators, and especially education leaders, have a responsibility to become part of the "we" that knows what works for diverse learners and then advocate for the implementation of those programs, policies, procedures, processes, peoples, and places that will support what works.

Although we educators are becoming better at fulfilling the first part of the responsibility--at least to a degree---we are not doing a very good job at fulfilling the second part. Even if we do advocate, nothing much changes. We must go back to Edmonds' quote, and ask why that is.

Referring back to yesterday's "blog post," much is due to how the bureaucracy of schools supports the status quo. It takes a lot of courage to confront a bureaucracy that rewards status quo and conformity.

In my book My Years As A Hispanic Youth Advocate..and The Lessons I Have Learned, I quote Parker Palmer from his book Courage to Teach substituting the word "I."
"Know that as I teach in ways that honor my own values without conforming to the situation, the force of the institution will come down on my head causing me to risk status, security, money, or power. The alternative rewards offered by living according to my values are fragile compared to raises, promotions, and status that organizations bestow on loyalists" (Lovejoy, 2004, p. 267).

If education is going to change for our diverse learners, we need educators who are willing to take the risk to be nonconformists: "Here in America we are descended in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine." ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, address, Columbia University, 31 May 1954

References:

Edmonds, R. R. (1979). "Effective schools for the urban poor." Educational Leadership, 17, 15-27.

Lovejoy, B. L. (2004). My Years As A Hispanic Youth Advocate..and The Lessons I Have Learned. Salt Lake City: Self-published.

Liberal Republican or Conservative Democrat?

At his the 2nd Annual Message to Congress on December 1, 1862, Abraham Lincoln said: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew."


We could use similar words to describe our education system in our day. What worked in the past is not adequate for today, especially for our diverse learners.


The recent debate and eventual defeat of the private school voucher referendum in Utah has caused me to ponder the following question: Am I a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat? My husband says there is no such thing, but if not, there is now. I'm just not sure which.

I find that my beliefs, opinions, and feelings are in tune with the Democrat compassionate stance when it comes to education issues, especially as they relate to diverse learners. I strongly support the Dream Act and bilingual education. Yet, expecting bureaucratic agencies, whether they be governmental or social, to solve the issue, is a pipe dream. Bureaucracies by their very nature support, encourage, and foster the status quo and conformity.

If we are going to meet the needs of our diverse learners, a stance that status quo is unacceptable must adamantly be taken. To overcome status quo will take an entrepreneurial spirit and attitude which is a trademark of the Republicans.

The bottom line question still remains after the voucher referendum defeat: How are the children? (Translation of Masai warrior greeting). This refers to all children--not just family related children. That is what the voucher debate and result should have been about.

Dr. William H. Jeynes argues the following which is worth pondering, "... to the extent to which religious schools promote parental involvement, religious commitment, and an overall more disciplined lifestyle, all of which relate to positive academic and social outcomes, it becomes very difficult to argue against allowing choice without sounding insular and self-serving. After all, even with low school choice participation rates, if the participant students of color are benefiting and the academic gap is reduced, it once again appears illogical and potentially racially oppressive and discriminatory to deny minority students the right to more fully reach their potential via a school choice system" (p.15).

How I or anyone else eventually defines one's self really isn't all that important. What is important to remember is: 1) We are facing a new challenge 2) Status quo is not an option and 3) The challenge is going to require us to think and act anew. The question is: Who is going to step forward?

Reference

Jeynes, W. H. (2007). Religion, intact families, and the achievement gap. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 3, 1-22.

Money As An Excuse, Not An Answer

Whether one supports school choice or not, this article by David W. Kirkpatrick is worth reading. Kirkpatrick is not saying, and I concur, that funding shouldn't be equitable for all students. That is a no-brainer. Yet, if money is the ONLY focus, our minority students will come up wanting.


Money As An Excuse, Not An Answer
The Blum Center for Parental Freedom in EducationDavid W. Kirkpatrick On School Choice, No. 18, January, 1997By David W. Kirkpatrick

Opponents of school choice, and other basic reforms of public schools, not only argue against real change but generally maintain that what is needed is more money. While no school can operate without funds that does not prove that more money will suffice.

Not that money isn't required, or that teachers shouldn't receive decent salaries, or that some classes may not be too big. But satisfying these needs, if that is possible, cannot and will not do the job, and this has been repeatedly demonstrated.

There are some 15,000 school districts in the nation, ranging from a few students to the million or so in New York City. They also range from districts that are very poor and could effectively use more money to some that spend more than $20,000 per year per pupil. Yet, whatever their size or budget, where is the district that says it has enough money or, wonder of wonders, that says it is spending too much?

Significantly, apologists for the status quo rarely attempt to cite instances where money has led to noteworthy achievement gains, much lower dropout rates, or other proof that money alone works. Nor do they say how much is needed, other than "more."

The standard answers to the present system's faults have been tried and have failed. Incomprehensibly, there are those who should know this who continue to advocate more of the same.

A generation ago John Henry Martin put the platitudes to the test. He was the superintendent of a school district which supported a budget increase of 35%, making possible many changes that are supposed to make for efficient schools and effective education.

Average class size went from over thirty pupils to about twenty. Specialists of all kinds were hired or increased in number: guidance counselors, social workers, psychologists, classroom aides, and remedial teachers. Two full-time remedial reading teachers were assigned to each elementary school in which the average enrollment was 600 pupils.

Teachers with advanced degrees were hired, the curriculum was updated, an extensive in-service program for teachers was initiated, a teacher council was chosen by secret ballot, and dozens of other reforms were introduced. After two years, outside evaluators were hired to assess the results. Students took achievement tests, with the results analyzed by class size, teacher age and experience, and the student's race, sex and family income.

In his 1972 book, Free To Learn, co-authored with Charles H. Harrison, Martin reported, "In the end, the cherished faith died...all that was done to make a difference had made no difference. The panaceas were, after all, only false promises--vain expectations. All the patented prescriptions...that made such a grand appearance in the college textbooks had failed the hard test of reality in the field."

At about the same time, in 1970, former Berkeley, California school superintendent Neil Sullivan told a U.S. Senate committee that his district had also lowered class size, provided remedial teachers, and the like, only to conclude three years later that inner city children had actually lost ground.

One of the most extensive and, given the source, one of the more important tests of the money theory was New York City's More Effective Schools (MES) program, initiated and supported by the New York local of the American Federation of Teachers, begun by the district with much fanfare in the 1960s. Because of the great costs it was introduced into only a handful of the 1,000 or so schools in the district.

MES could more properly have been termed the More Expensive Schools Program, because that was its principal distinction. It succeeded in spending great sums of money, but not in gaining added academic achievement by students.

It was also evaluated and found wanting, despite smaller classes (a teacher-pupil ratio of less than one to twelve), more experienced teachers, greater per-pupil expenditures, better facilities, compensatory education efforts, and all the rest. In only four of twenty-one schools did students average reading at grade level, and these schools contained mostly middle-class white students. The background of the students again appeared far more important than anything the schools did.

Even if MES had worked, a teacher-pupil ratio of one to twelve would not be replicable. Nationwide that would require some 3,750,000 teachers, over a million more than are currently in the schools, an obvious fiscal impossibility. But MES didn't work, and, in the mid-seventies it was ended, with much less fanfare than accompanied its introduction.

This information has been available for years, and has been publicized from time to time, including in my book, Choice in Schooling, published at the beginning of this decade. Yet it is largely ignored or forgotten. Even those who argue that just spending more money is not the answer often do so rhetorically without citing the ample evidence supporting their view.

Many urban districts that are in desperate shape educationally are among the nation's most expensive. Despite spending as much as $10,000 per year per pupil some cannot even maintain clean and safe schools. As Cleveland reportedly does, they may pay custodians as much as $80,000 per year while students have textbooks that are decades old. They then use the deterioration of the buildings, for which they are responsible, as an argument for more money.
Perhaps nowhere is the failure of money more evident than in the ongoing saga of Kansas City, Missouri. Federal district Judge Russell G. Clark took control of the district in the mid-1980s and ordered the state to give the district virtually a blank check.

He accepted the professional educators argument that money could make a difference, and if they were given enough of it they could transform the district, even raise test scores to state averages in about five years. (NOTE: the establishment wants several years to test its reforms, but demands that projects they don't like be declared failures and discontinued if they don't show immediate gains.)

In the decade since then more than 1.6 billion extra dollars have been spent on the fewer than 40,000 students, or about $40,000 extra per pupil. State officials argue that they have been forced to spend 45% of the state's education funds on the 9% of the state's students who are in Kansas City.

As Paul Ciotti noted in the Philadelphia Inquirer last August, "...in the new magnet schools were an Olympic-size swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, a robotics lab, professional quality recording...and animation studios, theaters, a planetarium, arboretum, zoo, a mock court with a judge's chamber and jury deliberation room and a model United Nations with simultaneous language translation." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" did a feature presentation on the topic.

The result?

Minority enrollment in the district has increased to 77%, achievement rates have not gone up, the large gap in scores between blacks and the district's few remaining whites continues, while dropout rates are said to have gone up to 55% and are still rising.

In short, "all that was done to make a difference had made no difference." Despite all the changes that money could buy the situation has worsened.

At last, the U.S. Supreme Court, reacting to an appeal from Missouri officials, has directed Judge Clark to modify his approach. It remains to be seen what benefit that will have for students, not to mention teachers, parents, and taxpayers.

The forecast here is that the outlook is grim unless the system is opened up through the introduction of meaningful reforms, including full school choice, that permit the creativity and intelligence of individual teachers, parents and students to be utilized.

Democracy rests on the belief that people make better decisions for themselves than others will make for them, but everyone seems not to have gotten the word. According to Nicole Garnett, writing about the school choice program in Milwaukee in the December 30, 1996/January 6, 1997 issue of The Weekly Standard, although 96% of the students in the program are minorities, and the local African-American newspaper, the Community Journal, reports 90% of the black community supports the program, the Milwaukee National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), argues against its expansion, saying "African Americans and other racial minorities especially benefit from implementation of uniformity of educational opportunity by a government official."

Unbelievable!

But arguing for more money has one seldom-recognized benefit for the educational establishment. When they fail to make progress they have a ready answer: we weren't given enough money!

1998, David W. Kirkpatrick 2323 Rudy Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17104-2025 Phone: (717) 232-2146, Fax: (717) 232-2164 kirkdw@aol.com

Status Quo Is Not An Option

Until people realize that status quo is not an option, business will continue as usual. Business as usual is unacceptable if we are to better serve our diverse learners in our education system.


One of the reasons that status quo persists is because when a proposal is presented, people tend to focus on its flaws and reject it because it is imperfect. Then a debate ensues, those for and those against. No one really wins, especially our diverse learners, when this happens. A debate is divisive.


A better option, in my opinion, would be to understand that there is a "THIRD SPACE." In other words, there is a better answer than a for or against a proposal. To find that better answer, though, at least two things must happen: 1) An understanding that status quo is not an option, 2) A healthy dialogue where all ideas can be freely expressed and explored.