A tale of two Stevens

I'd like to introduce you to Steven Brill and Dr. Steven Paine, my two new buddies. Brill is a journalist and publisher (media hounds might remember Brill's Content magazine, which went bust with the dot coms in 2001) who has written a book about education reform called Class Warfare. Paine is the schools superintendent of the entire state of West Virginia. Both are gaining widespread attention for speaking truths about what it takes to improve public education that run counter to the conventional wisdom about school reform. Brill is an astute observer. Paine is a straight-up visionary.

Brill first. He recently published a piece in the Wall Street Journal (of all places) that is (finally!) the article I've been waiting for...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576500531066414112.html

Hey look! It quotes real classroom teachers! It features comments by education reform leaders that make crystal clear the pressure charter school teachers are under. It lauds the skill of one teacher even as she makes the decision to quit (mid-year no less, a particularly devastating choice), choosing her health and marriage over the job.

But most of all it stands up in a national newspaper in front of millions of readers and waves the red flag of reality for all the world to see. On this flag is emblazoned: Three million teachers. It is a reminder--evidence flapping madly in the winds of finger-pointing and union-bashing--that true change to public education needs to include everyone. No one else is really saying that. Unions are in full defensive mode. Reformers are in attack formation. Enter Steven Brill, wily pundit, with the suggestion that Mayor Bloomberg name Randi Weingarten, teachers union chief and arch villain of Waiting for Superman, as school chancellor. Brill's being a gadfly, but his point is plain to see. He says it better than I ever could:

"If they are pushed the right way, the unions can help to create educational systems that can enable and encourage ordinary teachers to work harder and more effectively—and still allow them to sit down once in a while so that they don't burn out."

This should not be the radical statement it is in the eyes of many reformers, people whom I agree with on almost every other educational issue. Helping teachers get better without frying them to a crisp can only help the kids. Harnessing a union's organizational power (not to mention influencing its membership) to support teachers as they improve is just logical. Then why can't we say it out loud? Refusing to acknowledge the reality of the public education system and the people involved is something that makes me question the integrity of the reform movement in my darker moments (when chipper I think only of the dedicated, passionate people giving 110% every single day in classrooms all over the country). If it's really about all kids, and not just the ones that win the charter school lottery, then how can it make sense not to use (or, heck, co-opt) anything you can find?

It's a bird! It's a plane! It actually IS Superman!

Dr. Steven Paine is co-opting in a different way. He's standing up and declaring that against all odds West Virginia is going to reform the heck out of their public education system and just you try and stop them. Impossible is nothing! It's a move out of the education reform playbook where hard-core "no excuses" sloganeering is the name of the game. But instead of promoting higher test scores and picking apart the unions, he's blazing a trail from Charleston to...Helsinki.

The man has clearly seen Waiting for Superman, but he's drawn different conclusions than most of its fans. If Finland (much lauded in the movie) has the best public education system in the world, then, by golly, we should make our schools more like Finland's. Thing is...hmmm...Finland has strong teachers unions. Finland doesn't use standardized test to evaluate their students or teachers, instead promoting rigorous curriculum standards. Finland schools rely on project-based learning, which focuses on critical thinking and real-world problem-solving. Okey-dokey, said Paine. Sounds great. Let's do it.

How much do you love this man?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/29/education.wv.finland/index.html

The critics started in on him right away, of course. Finland is homogeneous (code for mostly white). Finland is smaller (code for we could never scale this). Finland has a tradition of social welfare programs (code for they believe government is not actually Satan on a stick). Paine said, whatevs. If it's good enough for those pale-faced, reindeer-loving socialists, it's good enough for the children of the diverse, economically depressed, traditionally conservative state of West Virginia. And, oh btw and brace yourself--our test scores really aren't that important to us under this particular model, but teachers and students getting excited about critical thinking, solving community problems and becoming better learners, rather than burning out in ridiculously high numbers and getting embroiled in cheating scandals? Yeah, we're all for that.

So am I. So should you be.

At this point it might be legitimate to ask why I remain non-unionized teacher at a high-performing charter school. If I love unions and superintendents so much, why don't I just get a job at a regular public school and see how I like it? But for me, it's not about one type of school vs. another. It's about all types of schools getting better and better at serving all types of kids, particularly those who have not been served in the past. The education reform movement has shown us what's possible in terms of low-income, under-served students. It's no longer OK (as if it ever was) to write off those students as too "disadvantaged" learn. Because they're not.

But I'm seeing with my own eyes charter systems (a centerpiece of the reform movement) so tied (by necessity) to private funding and so wedded to test scores as the only means to win that funding (ie: beat out other schools--in many cases other charters) that they are not serving kids as well as they could. Yet the intention is there. The brains, talent, passion and drive are there. Just imagine what a high-performing charter system could do with a vision like Dr. Paine's. Now that is worth waiting for...

Enter one teacher...

I read this in July and haven't stopped thinking about it since:

http://nymag.com/news/features/michelle-rhee-2011-3/

Ideally, you've clicked over and read at least part of the article because I'm now going to talk, at length, about what it feels like to be a teacher in the current climate, which reporter Andrew Rice analyzes so well. Because this is now the millionth article I've read (not to mention the whole movie Waiting for Superman) that talks about how the teaching profession needs to be swept out like the basement of a scary Victorian asylum without once quoting an actual living, breathing classroom teacher. Not even one.

What is up with that?

Enter one teacher, one that Michelle Rhee et al would likely approve. I've never been a member of a union and teach at a high-performing charter school. By rights, I should be rallying to Rhee's cause, nodding my head vigorously as she calls for more money for charters and more attention to our model of educating low-income, under-served kids.

Instead, reading about the leaders of the eduction reform movement always makes me a little queasy. Which is weird, given that I have dedicated my career to helping fulfill their overarching goal of helping low-income, under-served students succeed in college and beyond. But witnessing this movement from the classroom, as opposed to the set of Good Morning America or a fund-raising mixer, offers a different perspective. Things come to mind. Things that our leaders seem to be missing or ignoring. Things that will affect our low-income, under-served students (the living, breathing ones we see every day). Things that tend to complicate the issue and get lost in the shuffle, but are glaringly obvious when seen from the ground. At least in this teacher's opinion. I'm sure there are countless other teacher opinions out there. Not that I (or you) would know them, given the recent media coverage.

Public education, private money

The main issue I have with the education reform movement is how it reflects a trend throughout American politics to dismantle or limit public institutions and replace them with privately run alternatives. I say "privately run" because high-performing charter schools, like the one I work for, depend on private donations to fund their programs as well as public money. Without these donations, the programs we offer would suffer tremendously. What has already started to happen is that high-performing charters are competing with each other (sometimes within the same charter network) for these limited funds. Many donors, quite naturally, want a say in how their money is spent. So far, this has not directly affected curriculum/instruction (that I know of), but it certainly has an impact on other aspects of running a school. It makes me nervous that the promises we make to children and their families are, in part, dependent on the generosity of private individuals. Many of these donors are genuinely dedicated to the cause of educational equity--and yet, unlike the government, are under no obligation to continue funding if the their circumstances or interests change.

Teachers+

This dismantling of public institutions connects to another worrisome trend Rice brought up in the article: the laser focus of the education reform movement on improving teacher quality to the exclusion of all other factors. This is a tricky one to talk about without sounding like I don't care about teacher quality (which is ridiculous) or am making excuses for bad teachers (which I'm not), so I'm going to tread lightly. This line from the article is a good place to start:

Until fairly recently, everyone took it for granted that parents, educators, and communities shared the responsibility for schooling children, and presumed that outcomes were the product of a complex web of circumstances. Now the calculus has been narrowed to a single variable, the instructors, who are offered all the credit and shoulder all the blame.

Allow me to state without reservation: excellent teachers matter. Bad teachers cause no end of harm and should be fired. No one who serves the public should be able to keep their job just because they've had it longer than someone else. All children should have the very best teachers. End of story.

AND...by directing all attention, along with a schizophrenic jumble of vilification and praise, on teachers (and teachers alone), the education reform movement allows politicians on both sides of the aisle to ignore the expensive and politically volatile "web of circumstances" that continues to affect the life outcomes of low-income students, even as their test scores rise. This mindset does not serve kids. In fact, it hurts them. I have taught students who have made tremendous gains in my classroom and others--and have still gotten pregnant, joined gangs, fallen into drugs and/or crime, left the prestigious high schools where they'd been accepted, dropped out altogether or turned down acceptances to four-year universities for community college because it was all they could afford. These students' academic lives improved enormously, but the "calculus" of success is more complicated than that. Factors like race, class, parents' education level and a host of other inequalities continue to affect the outcomes of all children in America.

It's not about making excuses for kids. It's about keeping on the radar the other factors that can limit their success and working to fix them, along with tirelessly instilling a love of learning and the skills students need to graduate from college. The strongest legacy of the education reform movement in my opinion is the fundamental belief that low-income students can perform as well as their more privileged peers. It does my students no good if I set my expectations low simply because they live in a trailer park or a housing project, as some teachers have done for years. The kids are doing that homework, writing that essay, reading that book. I look out on my classes of 6th graders and believe with all my heart that every single one of them is going to college. Yet all the beautiful paragraphs and math projects in the world will not help my students succeed in life if the larger community doesn't support them in other ways. The courage to cross race, class and language barriers and be the first in one's family to graduate from college is something that must be encouraged, even taught. Schools are doing their best, but it should also come from the community, from families, churches and other organizations. All these programs need support and funding (along with, perhaps more dauntingly, honest conversation about race and class in this country). To put it all on teachers is damaging to everyone: kids, families, teachers and even the teaching profession itself.

If I go crazy, then will you still call me Superman?

Which leads me to my last point. I talked about this a little when I wrote about the movie Waiting For Superman and a possible sequel called We Are Still Standing (or, better, If I Go Crazy Then Will You Still Call Me Superman?) The push for all schools to adopt the high-performing charter model (upheld, rightly, as something that works for a higher percentage of low-income students) and corresponding finger-pointing when unions push back fails to acknowledge the lifestyle choice working for one of these schools entails. A cornerstone of all of these networks is a "whatever it takes" attitude, which translates into 60-80/hour work weeks for teachers, significantly curtailed evening and weekend time and shorter breaks with minimal added compensation. I choose to do this, but I understand that many teachers are not in a position to do the same. This doesn't make them "welfare queens" (Have you ever heard anything more ludicrous in your entire life? I'm talking to you, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey). What it makes them is equally dedicated parents or caregivers or volunteers or whatever else they like to do besides work all the time. So, maybe these people shouldn't be teachers if they have other things to do. OK. Then the teaching corps of the United States would mirror the demographics of high-performing charter teachers whose average age is probably around 26, if not lower. The problem is by age 30, many of these teachers are gone (burned out or simply ready to do other things), replaced by another crop of young, energetic bodies. All perfectly fine, if you can find them. Which even the highest-performing systems are having a hard time doing. To their credit, these networks are working hard to retain teachers--but the issue still needs to be part of the public discussion. All this talk about merit pay and handing out six-figure salaries also needs a little scrutiny turned its way. It sounds great on a talk show, but somehow these perks always fail to materialize in the funding realities mentioned above.

If I ruled the world...

This is what I wish would happen. The leaders of the education reform movement have all eyes on them at this moment in history, thanks to the genuine success of high-performing charters, programs like Teach for America and education research that prove beyond a question of a doubt that low-income students can make dramatic, life-changing academic gains with the support of passionately dedicated teachers. Now, I wish they'd seize this historic moment and instead of sharing the stage with the most virulently anti-union Republican governors, join forces with organizations that support students, challenge funding decisions at all levels that gut public education or harm low-income families in any way (or stop talking about not "throwing kids under the bus." Vulnerable kids and families are unfortunately in the direct path of many buses and teachers unions are frankly the least of them), and demand that teacher quality improve without demonizing teachers themselves. Surely this is possible. If even Michelle Rhee says 5-10% of public school teachers are dragging down the system that means 90-95% of us are doing our jobs well and/or are willing to improve. This is not a crisis; this is an amazing opportunity.

Where is the headline about that?