To Chairman LeMunyon and the Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee,
My name is Kelle Stewart. I am a Title I Teacher and President of the Apple Tree Network for Public Schools. I graduated from the New York University School of Law in 2004. On September 11, 2001 I watched the Twin Towers fall less than 20 blocks south of where I stood.
I had always wanted to teach but was strongly discouraged from doing so by my mother, who now serves as an Elementary school principal. She wanted to shield me from the low pay, the long hours, the often substandard working conditions, the constant blame for any and everything that is imperfect about the students we serve and not least of all the expectation that we make miracles happen with little more than faith and a prayer.
So I tried to focus my undergraduate work in Economics on public school finance issues, and worked as a tutor in underserved schools. But if living in New York after September 11 taught me anything, it was that tomorrow is not promised. I had been on a path to become a corporate attorney but God placed that burning desire to teach in my heart at an early age. The only way I could get back on that subway and get on with my life was to know that if my time came, I was doing what God told me to do, and not what anyone else was saying.
When the opportunity presented itself I completed the requirements to receive a Virginia Teaching License. Because of my legal and political background I remained involved in Education Policy at the local, state and federal levels and it quickly became very apparent that many of those making decisions affecting the very lives of public school teachers and students have never taught a day in their lives.
As a lawyer and advocate, I am continually shocked at the myriad civil rights violations and liability risks that teachers across the country willingly and silently endure on a daily basis. I have experienced these injustices first-hand. My very health, safety and well-being have all been compromised at one time or another, particularly when I was a new teacher, working under an inexperienced administrator.
Teachers also have to trust and pray that their students will be honest and forthright with their parents about what happens in classrooms. This is not as much of an issue with the grade level I teach but I have certainly experienced students going home and making up fanciful stories and telling parents things that never happened. To be quite honest, this is a natural part of the developmental stage that they are in and part of the early childhood educator's job is teaching students to take responsibility for their own actions. However, I shudder to think of the students who will not or cannot fully embrace these ethical behaviors and continue to engage in deceptive practices at the secondary school level.
But still I decided to teach despite enormous opposition from family members and associates. I know that I have a duty to educate not only our young people but also the legislators making the decisions that affect our young people's lives. The divide between educators and lawmakers grows ever more expansive every day. And the job still remains exceptionally difficult.
The only thing that allows me to focus on my duties as an educator is my Continuing Contract status. I know that if I do my job well, it doesn't matter that I had to complain that my room had no heat all winter last year, or that there was black mold on the floor in the classroom I had 3 years ago. It doesn't matter if a parent lies and says that I never told them about their child's progress even though I have the written documentation that they haven't responded to my conference requests for the entire year. It doesn't matter if an assistant principal decides she doesn't like me and tries to dismiss me and other teachers because of the color of my skin.
I urge you to very carefully consider your vote on HB576. Elimination of the continuing contract provision will have a severe chilling effect on the Commonwealth's ability to attract and retain high-quality teachers. The examples that I provided are based on real-life challenges I faced during my probationary period. It caused me enormous strain and my health suffered significantly because of the constant fear of losing my job simply for trying to DO MY JOB and keep my students safe.
I and every other teacher in this country choose to make tremendous sacrifices of our time, our financial resources, and our health because of our love for children and our commitment to the future of this country. Do not let the media and others who care nothing about the realities of public schools allow you to be swayed in the commitment I know you all have as well.
Thank you so much for your time and I truly appreciate your willingness to consider all the facets of this complicated issue.
Yours in service,
Kelle Stewart, J.D.
kellestewart@gmail.com
Monday, February 6, 2012
Monday, October 17, 2011
Think Differently about Education Reform
I’m new to the Mac thing. Maybe that’s why I feel like the only person in the world who was shocked when Steve Jobs died. I don’t read MacWorld. I’ve never typed in a Google search for “Steve Jobs,” “Iphone 5” or even “Iphone 4” for that matter. I only knew that he was sick and that he absolutely had to get better. I had only just begun to experience everything that makes Macs so unequivocally superior to PCs. It was as if the veil had been lifted. I couldn’t fathom the idea of losing his genius even though it had taken me ages to finally embrace it.
I had been an Ipod user for a while but the Iphone increased my productivity so dramatically that I wanted to throw my netbook against the wall. I resented all of the time and energy PCs had stolen from me over the years. I sold the netbook, bought a used Ibook on Ebay and never looked back.
It’s not that I’m a Mac product junkie. As a teacher that’s just not a reality I can afford right now. Every Apple product I own is used, refurbished and long since replaced by faster, slicker versions. But even my first-generation Iphone and Ibook G4 shame the virus-laden PC monsters I’m forced to operate every time I leave my home. My elegant fonts are replaced with alien script. My flash drives are corrupted at every turn. And don’t get me started on the riots that nearly ensued when my school was forced to adopt Windows 7.
But this isn’t the cause of the pain I felt when Jobs passed. Apple wasn’t built or managed by him alone, especially in recent years. His company will continue to enthrall us with new gadgets we don’t even realize we need yet. But these gadgets are still just things—marvelous, sleek, shiny, hyper-functional, yes. But they don’t live and breathe.
The reality, wrapped up in my own fantasy, was that one glorious day, Steve Jobs would ride in on his white horse, (classroom sets of Ipads in tow) and “save our schools” from the onslaught of so-called reforms being wrought upon us by the captains of industry. Steve Jobs was the only person in the galaxy who could have matched them all head to head (and bank account to bank account for that matter) and called them out on their flawed thinking. More importantly he always maintained a “Buddhist Beginner’s Mind” approach to business, which means he was always willing to learn. His was the only marketplace mindset that should be applied to field of education, particularly by outsiders.
In a 1993 Wired article, Jobs gave a description of large companies that is a mirror image of the biggest problem with public schools today. He said that they “do not usually have efficient communication paths from the people closest to changes at the bottom of the company,” and that people are the “top of the company” are “making the big decisions.” This is exactly the type of top-down education reform plaguing public schools. Teachers, who are closest to students, are not only left out of the conversation but also disrespected and maligned despite the endless sacrifices inherent to the profession. What is more is that many of the top decision-makers have never taught a day in their life!
Jobs also said of Xerox’s operating system in its early stages: “I saw a very rudimentary graphical user interface. It wasn’t complete. It wasn’t quite right. But within 10 minutes, it was obvious that every computer in the world would work this way.” This brings to mind the present-day charter school and test score-driven accountability movements infesting the framework of every public school in this country.
School budgets are being slashed to the bone in nearly every state. Districts are therefore forced to accept recycled “initiatives” they know will have no real impact on student achievement in exchange for the cash they need simply to open their doors. Despite the fact that charters often underperform when compared with traditional public schools, districts are pressured to introduce more of them. Others are forced to implement test-score driven teacher evaluation systems, all of which have failed in every previous incarnation. None have been as bloated as the current versions being implemented. Many administrators are reporting having to spend 2-3 days evaluating one teacher with 6-8 evaluations for each teacher being required over the course of the school year.
Jobs also said that Microsoft, his largest competitor was able to dominate “with very little innovation.” He went as far as saying, “Innovation has virtually ceased… That is over… It’s going to be in dark ages for the next 10 years, or certainly for the rest of this decade.” Had Jobs eventually found his way into the education debate he would have seen how perfectly his words described what’s happening to us now. This hyper-focus on testing is killing the creative space needed to spark innovation not only in our students but also our teachers, who are the one shot we have at getting this right.
It was all probably an exercise in futility though. Although Jobs described most people in business as being “ethical, hard-working” and “good,” he didn’t always afford the same generosity of spirit to educators. The few words he uttered on the subject of public schools focused primarily on unions and bad teachers, which is hardly an innovative solution. That viewpoint notwithstanding, it’s hard to deny the direct impact his wife Laurene Powell Jobs has had with her College Track program, which helps low-income and minority youth prepare for the rigorous college admissions process.
Jobs leaned more to the arts and entertainment than the public sector and you can’t really blame him for that given his gifts. But given his eternal optimism and vision, you can’t blame me for wishing that he would one day revolutionize the world of public education. Perhaps the best homage we can all pay to his legacy is taking a vow to think differently. We shouldn’t be forced to keep buying these so-called solutions that really only cause us more pain. We should stand up and fight for what we know will work best for us and for our children.
I had been an Ipod user for a while but the Iphone increased my productivity so dramatically that I wanted to throw my netbook against the wall. I resented all of the time and energy PCs had stolen from me over the years. I sold the netbook, bought a used Ibook on Ebay and never looked back.
It’s not that I’m a Mac product junkie. As a teacher that’s just not a reality I can afford right now. Every Apple product I own is used, refurbished and long since replaced by faster, slicker versions. But even my first-generation Iphone and Ibook G4 shame the virus-laden PC monsters I’m forced to operate every time I leave my home. My elegant fonts are replaced with alien script. My flash drives are corrupted at every turn. And don’t get me started on the riots that nearly ensued when my school was forced to adopt Windows 7.
But this isn’t the cause of the pain I felt when Jobs passed. Apple wasn’t built or managed by him alone, especially in recent years. His company will continue to enthrall us with new gadgets we don’t even realize we need yet. But these gadgets are still just things—marvelous, sleek, shiny, hyper-functional, yes. But they don’t live and breathe.
The reality, wrapped up in my own fantasy, was that one glorious day, Steve Jobs would ride in on his white horse, (classroom sets of Ipads in tow) and “save our schools” from the onslaught of so-called reforms being wrought upon us by the captains of industry. Steve Jobs was the only person in the galaxy who could have matched them all head to head (and bank account to bank account for that matter) and called them out on their flawed thinking. More importantly he always maintained a “Buddhist Beginner’s Mind” approach to business, which means he was always willing to learn. His was the only marketplace mindset that should be applied to field of education, particularly by outsiders.
In a 1993 Wired article, Jobs gave a description of large companies that is a mirror image of the biggest problem with public schools today. He said that they “do not usually have efficient communication paths from the people closest to changes at the bottom of the company,” and that people are the “top of the company” are “making the big decisions.” This is exactly the type of top-down education reform plaguing public schools. Teachers, who are closest to students, are not only left out of the conversation but also disrespected and maligned despite the endless sacrifices inherent to the profession. What is more is that many of the top decision-makers have never taught a day in their life!
Jobs also said of Xerox’s operating system in its early stages: “I saw a very rudimentary graphical user interface. It wasn’t complete. It wasn’t quite right. But within 10 minutes, it was obvious that every computer in the world would work this way.” This brings to mind the present-day charter school and test score-driven accountability movements infesting the framework of every public school in this country.
School budgets are being slashed to the bone in nearly every state. Districts are therefore forced to accept recycled “initiatives” they know will have no real impact on student achievement in exchange for the cash they need simply to open their doors. Despite the fact that charters often underperform when compared with traditional public schools, districts are pressured to introduce more of them. Others are forced to implement test-score driven teacher evaluation systems, all of which have failed in every previous incarnation. None have been as bloated as the current versions being implemented. Many administrators are reporting having to spend 2-3 days evaluating one teacher with 6-8 evaluations for each teacher being required over the course of the school year.
Jobs also said that Microsoft, his largest competitor was able to dominate “with very little innovation.” He went as far as saying, “Innovation has virtually ceased… That is over… It’s going to be in dark ages for the next 10 years, or certainly for the rest of this decade.” Had Jobs eventually found his way into the education debate he would have seen how perfectly his words described what’s happening to us now. This hyper-focus on testing is killing the creative space needed to spark innovation not only in our students but also our teachers, who are the one shot we have at getting this right.
It was all probably an exercise in futility though. Although Jobs described most people in business as being “ethical, hard-working” and “good,” he didn’t always afford the same generosity of spirit to educators. The few words he uttered on the subject of public schools focused primarily on unions and bad teachers, which is hardly an innovative solution. That viewpoint notwithstanding, it’s hard to deny the direct impact his wife Laurene Powell Jobs has had with her College Track program, which helps low-income and minority youth prepare for the rigorous college admissions process.
Jobs leaned more to the arts and entertainment than the public sector and you can’t really blame him for that given his gifts. But given his eternal optimism and vision, you can’t blame me for wishing that he would one day revolutionize the world of public education. Perhaps the best homage we can all pay to his legacy is taking a vow to think differently. We shouldn’t be forced to keep buying these so-called solutions that really only cause us more pain. We should stand up and fight for what we know will work best for us and for our children.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Thoughts on the Tone of the Education Debate
Mr. Richard Whitmire wrote this thought-provoking piece on Huffington Post about the increasingly bitter tone of the Education Reform Debate. My full response follows:
Dear Mr. Whitmire,
Your impartiality in this article is greatly appreciated and deserving of commendation. In my opinion, this is the proper role of education journalists. The dissension from professional educators stems from the fact that most of these writers have never set foot inside a classroom, yet are given incredibly powerful platforms to shape the education discussion. The piece you have written here rightly takes on a position of open-minded inquisitiveness rather than all-knowing dogmatism. If more education writers reflected this attitude I believe the debate could proceed in a much more civilized manner.
Unfortunately, Ms. Ripley did not take the same attitude in the Atlantic piece. I’m disappointed but not surprised at the harsh feedback she received. She made a number of overbroad statements like "teachers are almost never dismissed" and "principals almost never give teachers poor performance evaluations." No data was included to support this conclusion but it was presented it as if it were a matter of fact. She also juxtaposed the highly effective TFA teacher with a largely ineffective non-TFA teacher as if the latter is the norm. These assertions simply aren’t true of any district I have ever taught in.
TFA has actually gone on record as saying that they would like to build better relationships with traditional teachers so this unnecessarily antagonistic approach was not only statistically flawed but also politically outdated.
What's more is that she seems to have written the piece to build support for TFA's accomplishments but this really isn’t her place as a journalist. Furthermore it’s unnecessary. There are examples of outstanding TFA teachers just as there are many outstanding traditional teachers. The media doesn't need to hold either group on a pedestal. Education journalists must uphold the ethical integrity of their craft by maintaining neutrality. I hope that if Ms. Ripley continues to write about these issues she will follow your example.
I would also caution against oversimplifying the debate in terms of “Education Reformers” versus “The Teachers’ Unions.” I’m a member of my local affiliate of the NEA because of the legal protection and outstanding professional development they provide. I do not necessarily agree with every political stance the national organization espouses. This is analogous to saying that because I pay federal taxes, I agree with every law enacted by Congress.
I also live in a right-to-work state that specifically prohibits collective bargaining so we’re not even organized as a union here, rather as a professional association. I obviously have very different motivations than a national labor union fighting for its very survival against a tidal wave of anti-union sentiment driven entirely by our country’s precarious economic position.
This push to further economically disenfranchise teachers who are already sacrificing so much has no place in theoretical education journalism and is best left to true economic empiricists. Framing the debate in these terms of “reformers” vs. “unions,” implicitly and unfairly ascribes this dogfight to educators and only serves to further victimize and suppress the voices of those who clearly care about our children the most.
I hope this small suggestion is received with the good faith in which it is given. Your article was really quite refreshing and hopefully represents a turning point in the debate. I thank you for your open-mindedness in exploring this vexing issue and I hope more education writers will follow your impressive lead.
Yours in service,
Kelle Stewart, J.D.
Dear Mr. Whitmire,
Your impartiality in this article is greatly appreciated and deserving of commendation. In my opinion, this is the proper role of education journalists. The dissension from professional educators stems from the fact that most of these writers have never set foot inside a classroom, yet are given incredibly powerful platforms to shape the education discussion. The piece you have written here rightly takes on a position of open-minded inquisitiveness rather than all-knowing dogmatism. If more education writers reflected this attitude I believe the debate could proceed in a much more civilized manner.
Unfortunately, Ms. Ripley did not take the same attitude in the Atlantic piece. I’m disappointed but not surprised at the harsh feedback she received. She made a number of overbroad statements like "teachers are almost never dismissed" and "principals almost never give teachers poor performance evaluations." No data was included to support this conclusion but it was presented it as if it were a matter of fact. She also juxtaposed the highly effective TFA teacher with a largely ineffective non-TFA teacher as if the latter is the norm. These assertions simply aren’t true of any district I have ever taught in.
TFA has actually gone on record as saying that they would like to build better relationships with traditional teachers so this unnecessarily antagonistic approach was not only statistically flawed but also politically outdated.
What's more is that she seems to have written the piece to build support for TFA's accomplishments but this really isn’t her place as a journalist. Furthermore it’s unnecessary. There are examples of outstanding TFA teachers just as there are many outstanding traditional teachers. The media doesn't need to hold either group on a pedestal. Education journalists must uphold the ethical integrity of their craft by maintaining neutrality. I hope that if Ms. Ripley continues to write about these issues she will follow your example.
I would also caution against oversimplifying the debate in terms of “Education Reformers” versus “The Teachers’ Unions.” I’m a member of my local affiliate of the NEA because of the legal protection and outstanding professional development they provide. I do not necessarily agree with every political stance the national organization espouses. This is analogous to saying that because I pay federal taxes, I agree with every law enacted by Congress.
I also live in a right-to-work state that specifically prohibits collective bargaining so we’re not even organized as a union here, rather as a professional association. I obviously have very different motivations than a national labor union fighting for its very survival against a tidal wave of anti-union sentiment driven entirely by our country’s precarious economic position.
This push to further economically disenfranchise teachers who are already sacrificing so much has no place in theoretical education journalism and is best left to true economic empiricists. Framing the debate in these terms of “reformers” vs. “unions,” implicitly and unfairly ascribes this dogfight to educators and only serves to further victimize and suppress the voices of those who clearly care about our children the most.
I hope this small suggestion is received with the good faith in which it is given. Your article was really quite refreshing and hopefully represents a turning point in the debate. I thank you for your open-mindedness in exploring this vexing issue and I hope more education writers will follow your impressive lead.
Yours in service,
Kelle Stewart, J.D.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Reflections from SOS
Most grassroots reformers agree that the No Child Left Behind Act has exacerbated educational inequity by sentencing poor children to years of test-prep and multiple-choice assessments. Student scores on these limited and sometimes biased high-stakes tests are then used to justify harsh turnaround penalties such as school restructuring, closings and the threat of losing federal funding. Many mainstream education reform organizations gaining traction in the worlds of media and philanthropy publicly decry this situation as well.
The two schools of thought diverge in their models of what the improved landscape should look like. Some mainstream reformers place primary responsibility for deficiencies in public schools on teachers. This is an interesting conclusion given the fact that the main measure of teacher competence is standardized test scores, which many of these same organizations agree need to be reformed as well. Merit-based pay, which awards teachers bonuses on the basis of improving these flawed test scores, is an equally confusing option sometimes presented.
Charter schools are also often touted as another way to improve our education system. Indeed, some charter schools do achieve great success and the work that their administrators and teachers do, often without union protections, is laudable. Unfortunately all charter schools are not the same. Some have the option of refusing admission to students with the highest need (e.g. homeless, special needs, non-English speakers).
Also charter schools sometimes put a strain on limited resources. In New York City, for example, there have been incidences of “co-location” where existing public schools are forced to “squeeze” their student populations to make room in their buildings for newly created charter schools. But when we go back to the flawed tests, for lack of any other method of determining success, we still see no marked improvements.
Grassroots reform groups are typically comprised of teachers who have tired of seeing the immediate and deleterious impacts of these measures on the students that they teach every day. My most pivotal experiences have been shaped by high-stakes testing and the way it diverts precious human and capital resources from Early Childhood Education, which is critically important for low-income and minority students.
Administrators are forced to place their strongest teachers and financial resources in the tested grades in order to make AYP or Adequate Yearly Progress if they are to receive desperately needed federal funding. This circumstance weakens the early foundations of literacy and mathematical reasoning. It is often impossible to correct these deficits in later grades, which leads to lower tests scores and the same vicious cycle of failure repeating itself over and over again.
This is why I supported the goals of the SOS March held this past weekend. I knew that it was a colossally inopportune time to discuss anything but the economy, with the debt ceiling debate in full swing, but I still felt it was important to attend. I hoped to connect with other educators who shared my desire to create a positive change in the direction of education policy.
I came with high hopes and an open mind but was deeply troubled by the organizing committee’s rebuff of the White House’s efforts to communicate with them. I believe that this act was not only a tactical error but also extremely disrespectful.
I had a hard time understanding why so much antagonism was being directed at President Obama and Secretary Duncan when Congress is actively engaged in an ESEA Reauthorization effort that could warp public schools beyond recognition. There was definite agreement that NCLB has hurt our schools but very little awareness that legislation currently being proposed by the House Education and Workforce committee poses a much greater threat to grassroots education reform than anything that has ever come out of the Executive Branch. For example, HR 2445 proposes the gutting of programs historically designated for low-income and minority students. A previous bill would require the Department of Education to set aside 20% of their budget for the funding and expansion of charter schools.
President Obama and Secretary Duncan have both emphasized the need for both improved assessments as well as more appropriate teacher evaluation tools. This should have been highlighted as it represents common ground with grassroots reformers.
There was also misinformation regarding the nature of the meeting that was supposed to have taken place with the White House. Some thought that it was to have been with the President himself, but I am now being told that the President only intended to “pass though” and that the organizers had really only refused a meeting with top education officials in the administration. Regardless of who would have been present at the meeting, the invitation was extended, on the day of the first House Vote on the debt ceiling at that. The organizers would not have had to look far (Twitter, perhaps?) to find at least one person who would have been willing to provide assistance either by representing them at the meeting or by managing additional duties at the conference.
Instead, the mood of many of the marchers was defiant, triumphant even, at the idea that the organizers had told President Obama that he had to come to the march in order to hear the SOS message. This sentiment was emphasized through signs and reiterated countless times in the Twitter feeds connected to the March. It was a very difficult force to counteract for those of us who came simply because we support the principles of the march and we’re tired of being attacked and blamed all the time.
This is not to say that the President Obama’s education policies should be examined less closely than those of any other President. But the fact that his administration was willing to hear the concerns of the grassroots education movement should not have been taken so lightly. That was an opportunity to once again share our concerns and most importantly show respect for the highest office in the United States.
What is more is that future efforts by the grassroots education movement to gain increased support from minorities may have been damaged by SOS’s casual treatment of the first African-American President. It is one thing to disagree with his policies but it is quite another to treat him and members of his Administration so dismissively.
It’s impossible to put into words what it meant for me to have a black man elected as President. The night of his election I literally felt the weight of 300 years lifting off of my shoulders. I knew that incidences of racism would still occur, of course. And I knew that the stain of institutional racism could not erased by the election of one man. But in that singular moment, all of the power of that racism was neutralized. Racism no longer represented control -- it was reduced to mere dissension and hatred. That night, President Obama proved that an African-American can accede to the highest office in the land. And he made it abundantly clear that if we can do that, we can do anything.
It isn’t a crime for the SOS organizers not to understand the visceral, unwavering support that many African-Americans still have for President Obama. But not even considering the possibility that their actions might be construed as hurtful and counter to the very objective they claim to promote reflects a need to include more minorities in their future planning efforts. It is also further evidence of the harm that can result from being unable to see the world through any lens other than your own.
And at the heart of the matter is the fact that we are educators. When we have a chance to educate anyone, regardless of their position, we should treasure and honor it. Not everyone has that opportunity. The SOS organizers owed it to our young people to put their emotions and political interests aside in the interest of building support for their cause.
Everyone deserves a chance to be heard and nothing is EVER gained through being unwilling to compromise. In fact everything can be lost as a result of limited thinking. The key lies in opening ourselves up and simply hearing what others have to say. There is ALWAYS something valuable to take away. As educators it is our responsibility to make sure that we are consistently reflecting that truth for our students, especially if we expect them to be willing to listen to us.
~Kelle Stewart
The two schools of thought diverge in their models of what the improved landscape should look like. Some mainstream reformers place primary responsibility for deficiencies in public schools on teachers. This is an interesting conclusion given the fact that the main measure of teacher competence is standardized test scores, which many of these same organizations agree need to be reformed as well. Merit-based pay, which awards teachers bonuses on the basis of improving these flawed test scores, is an equally confusing option sometimes presented.
Charter schools are also often touted as another way to improve our education system. Indeed, some charter schools do achieve great success and the work that their administrators and teachers do, often without union protections, is laudable. Unfortunately all charter schools are not the same. Some have the option of refusing admission to students with the highest need (e.g. homeless, special needs, non-English speakers).
Also charter schools sometimes put a strain on limited resources. In New York City, for example, there have been incidences of “co-location” where existing public schools are forced to “squeeze” their student populations to make room in their buildings for newly created charter schools. But when we go back to the flawed tests, for lack of any other method of determining success, we still see no marked improvements.
Grassroots reform groups are typically comprised of teachers who have tired of seeing the immediate and deleterious impacts of these measures on the students that they teach every day. My most pivotal experiences have been shaped by high-stakes testing and the way it diverts precious human and capital resources from Early Childhood Education, which is critically important for low-income and minority students.
Administrators are forced to place their strongest teachers and financial resources in the tested grades in order to make AYP or Adequate Yearly Progress if they are to receive desperately needed federal funding. This circumstance weakens the early foundations of literacy and mathematical reasoning. It is often impossible to correct these deficits in later grades, which leads to lower tests scores and the same vicious cycle of failure repeating itself over and over again.
This is why I supported the goals of the SOS March held this past weekend. I knew that it was a colossally inopportune time to discuss anything but the economy, with the debt ceiling debate in full swing, but I still felt it was important to attend. I hoped to connect with other educators who shared my desire to create a positive change in the direction of education policy.
I came with high hopes and an open mind but was deeply troubled by the organizing committee’s rebuff of the White House’s efforts to communicate with them. I believe that this act was not only a tactical error but also extremely disrespectful.
I had a hard time understanding why so much antagonism was being directed at President Obama and Secretary Duncan when Congress is actively engaged in an ESEA Reauthorization effort that could warp public schools beyond recognition. There was definite agreement that NCLB has hurt our schools but very little awareness that legislation currently being proposed by the House Education and Workforce committee poses a much greater threat to grassroots education reform than anything that has ever come out of the Executive Branch. For example, HR 2445 proposes the gutting of programs historically designated for low-income and minority students. A previous bill would require the Department of Education to set aside 20% of their budget for the funding and expansion of charter schools.
President Obama and Secretary Duncan have both emphasized the need for both improved assessments as well as more appropriate teacher evaluation tools. This should have been highlighted as it represents common ground with grassroots reformers.
There was also misinformation regarding the nature of the meeting that was supposed to have taken place with the White House. Some thought that it was to have been with the President himself, but I am now being told that the President only intended to “pass though” and that the organizers had really only refused a meeting with top education officials in the administration. Regardless of who would have been present at the meeting, the invitation was extended, on the day of the first House Vote on the debt ceiling at that. The organizers would not have had to look far (Twitter, perhaps?) to find at least one person who would have been willing to provide assistance either by representing them at the meeting or by managing additional duties at the conference.
Instead, the mood of many of the marchers was defiant, triumphant even, at the idea that the organizers had told President Obama that he had to come to the march in order to hear the SOS message. This sentiment was emphasized through signs and reiterated countless times in the Twitter feeds connected to the March. It was a very difficult force to counteract for those of us who came simply because we support the principles of the march and we’re tired of being attacked and blamed all the time.
This is not to say that the President Obama’s education policies should be examined less closely than those of any other President. But the fact that his administration was willing to hear the concerns of the grassroots education movement should not have been taken so lightly. That was an opportunity to once again share our concerns and most importantly show respect for the highest office in the United States.
What is more is that future efforts by the grassroots education movement to gain increased support from minorities may have been damaged by SOS’s casual treatment of the first African-American President. It is one thing to disagree with his policies but it is quite another to treat him and members of his Administration so dismissively.
It’s impossible to put into words what it meant for me to have a black man elected as President. The night of his election I literally felt the weight of 300 years lifting off of my shoulders. I knew that incidences of racism would still occur, of course. And I knew that the stain of institutional racism could not erased by the election of one man. But in that singular moment, all of the power of that racism was neutralized. Racism no longer represented control -- it was reduced to mere dissension and hatred. That night, President Obama proved that an African-American can accede to the highest office in the land. And he made it abundantly clear that if we can do that, we can do anything.
It isn’t a crime for the SOS organizers not to understand the visceral, unwavering support that many African-Americans still have for President Obama. But not even considering the possibility that their actions might be construed as hurtful and counter to the very objective they claim to promote reflects a need to include more minorities in their future planning efforts. It is also further evidence of the harm that can result from being unable to see the world through any lens other than your own.
And at the heart of the matter is the fact that we are educators. When we have a chance to educate anyone, regardless of their position, we should treasure and honor it. Not everyone has that opportunity. The SOS organizers owed it to our young people to put their emotions and political interests aside in the interest of building support for their cause.
Everyone deserves a chance to be heard and nothing is EVER gained through being unwilling to compromise. In fact everything can be lost as a result of limited thinking. The key lies in opening ourselves up and simply hearing what others have to say. There is ALWAYS something valuable to take away. As educators it is our responsibility to make sure that we are consistently reflecting that truth for our students, especially if we expect them to be willing to listen to us.
~Kelle Stewart
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Why the March Matters
One point I would like to emphasize is that I’m not making any demands. I would never make any demand of our President, especially during the turbulence of this fabricated debt crisis. I am marching only to make my voice heard.
It is especially timely that the SOS March coincided with the impasse in Washington over the debt ceiling. Just as Democrats and Republicans must come together in the best interest of our country, the two sides of the education reform debate must come together in the best interests of our children.
There has been a concerted effort by mainstream education reformists to silence the grassroots reform movement through mischaracterizations and defamation. These types of silencing tactics are the tools of an oppressor. I am marching against this oppression and to make sure the voices of teachers, students and parents are heard.
Taxpayers are being forced to spend almost $1 billion annually to fund high-stakes testing. Both sides tend to agree that these tests are inappropriate measures of achievement. So why, out of all the education funding cuts being proposed, isn't a temporary cessation of these flawed assessments even being considered? These tests are purchased from private companies at no small cost. That kind of profit motive has no place in public schools.
When you add that to HR 2445, which proposes the gutting of Title I funding for low-income and minority students, you really have to ask yourself whose interests the Republicans have in mind.
We, as teachers, recognize the importance of modeling appropriate behavior for young people. We have to demonstrate what democracy looks like. It is thoughtful and deliberate and it certainly doesn’t involve one side controlling and manipulating the entire discussion.
An enlightened teacher doesn’t stifle debate in her classroom. In fact she welcomes it. She encourages healthy discussion and seeks a diverse range of opinions. Each new idea presented helps the other students further clarify and refine their own viewpoints.
With regards to education reform, the enlightened teacher only cares that each moment is spent working in the best interest of children, not her personal interests. She knows she must set a shining example of how to disagree in a functional and respectful manner. The fate of our nation depends upon it.
It is especially timely that the SOS March coincided with the impasse in Washington over the debt ceiling. Just as Democrats and Republicans must come together in the best interest of our country, the two sides of the education reform debate must come together in the best interests of our children.
There has been a concerted effort by mainstream education reformists to silence the grassroots reform movement through mischaracterizations and defamation. These types of silencing tactics are the tools of an oppressor. I am marching against this oppression and to make sure the voices of teachers, students and parents are heard.
Taxpayers are being forced to spend almost $1 billion annually to fund high-stakes testing. Both sides tend to agree that these tests are inappropriate measures of achievement. So why, out of all the education funding cuts being proposed, isn't a temporary cessation of these flawed assessments even being considered? These tests are purchased from private companies at no small cost. That kind of profit motive has no place in public schools.
When you add that to HR 2445, which proposes the gutting of Title I funding for low-income and minority students, you really have to ask yourself whose interests the Republicans have in mind.
We, as teachers, recognize the importance of modeling appropriate behavior for young people. We have to demonstrate what democracy looks like. It is thoughtful and deliberate and it certainly doesn’t involve one side controlling and manipulating the entire discussion.
An enlightened teacher doesn’t stifle debate in her classroom. In fact she welcomes it. She encourages healthy discussion and seeks a diverse range of opinions. Each new idea presented helps the other students further clarify and refine their own viewpoints.
With regards to education reform, the enlightened teacher only cares that each moment is spent working in the best interest of children, not her personal interests. She knows she must set a shining example of how to disagree in a functional and respectful manner. The fate of our nation depends upon it.
Monday, July 18, 2011
A Profile in Courage
When I first became involved in Education Policy I literally wrote with the blood, sweat and tears of my classroom experiences on my hands. I was hesitant to publish my writings in those early days. I would re-read them and edit them over and over again. But they always seemed too raw, too real and too gritty to have any chance at being received constructively.
Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teacher never ceased to amaze me with her calm demeanor and her ability to present the concerns and realities of classroom teachers with unparalleled diplomacy, matched only perhaps by Diane Ravitch, the most prolific voice of the organic education reform movement.
I would watch Ms. Weingarten, often the lone voice representing practicing classroom educators, sit calmly and wait patiently for her turn to respond to unwarranted and at times vitriolic attacks on the teaching profession. She always spoke in a measured way, many times even praising the reform efforts of her detractors in the process. I vowed to conduct myself in the same manner whenever the opportunity arose.
But it seems that at the kickoff for the biennial AFT conference, Ms. Weingarten felt safe letting down her guard and she made plain the injustice she and many other educators feel at being subjected to reform from "on high." She called on members to "refuse to be defined by people who are happy to lecture us about the state of public education but wouldn't last 10 minutes in a classroom." Her remarks were preceded by comments from Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) who included the very extremely pertinent observation that "There is no way to be for our children and against teachers."
Ms. Weingarten's remarks supporting teachers went largely unnoticed as media coverage tends to focus on the more sensational and unpopular bureaucratic functions of the AFT including stalled negotiations with Baltimore KIPP charter schools and their contractually mandated support of teachers implicated in the APS cheating scandal. Some mentions of her pro-teacher comments were strategically included as afterthoughts in articles critical of the union's stances on these controversial issues.
Ms. Weingarten probably knew that her words might be turned against her in this way and this is why I found her honesty and candor all the more impressive. It takes a great deal of restraint and class to stay composed despite the barrage of attacks leveled at her daily. Nevertheless there are also times where one has to put down the protective shield of diplomacy and speak the unfiltered truth. I admire Ms. Weingarten's courage in choosing to do so.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
A Dark, Twisted Strategy for ESEA?
My philosophy of advocacy stems from seeking commonality and building bridges through shared interests and goals. When given a choice I will always look for the positives in any given situation. My politics are solidly independent, particularly when it comes to public education. But bipartisanship - no matter how desirable and appealing politicians may make it sound - is not without its struggles and lends itself to its own particular brand of despair, especially with regards to ESEA reauthorization.
For instance, my heart clearly bleeds for teachers and students desperately trying to cover meet all their curriculum requirements in freezing classrooms, the rusted leaky pipes prone to burst at any time and literally wash away the tangible fruits of all their hard work. All the more so because that was precisely the situation I found myself in less than a year ago.
But managing law school-sized loans on a teacher-sized salary has also taught me the enormous importance of debt-reduction and some level of austerity. I also recognize the precarious economic position our country has found herself in. Increased government spending hasn't restored equilibrium as quickly as we had hoped and time is running out. I suppose the students can wear their coats inside for one more year if it indirectly helps a few teachers keep their jobs.
Which is why I was initially supportive of the Committee's first piecemeal effort at consolidating and/or repealing "duplicative" and "unnecessary" federally funded education programs. I was troubled to learn later that much of the funding eliminated on the basis of duplication (e.g. $88 million for Smaller Learning Communities in public schools, $25 million for the National Writing Project) was said to be covered under Title I (Aid to the Disadvantaged). But if 80% of the nation's schools are slated to fail and don't make the adequate yearly progress necessary to receive Title I funds, are the programs really funded? Will the monies carry over to the next year? I'm guessing they won't. Still, fiscal solvency is the most pressing issue facing our nation and it seemed as sensible a place as any to start filling in the piecemeal puzzle.
I couldn't help but grit my teeth just a little when the Committee didn't then immediately pick up what is undeniably the most important piece of the puzzle: Relief for LEAs from the looming 2011 AYP proficiency targets. And when the second reform bill the committee introduced and passed dealt not with high-stakes testing but instead the financial cultivation and propagation of ... ("Gasp!")... Charter Schools... my liberal heart got the best of me and jumped into my throat. It proceeded to sink somewhere down around my knees and hasn't gotten back up since.
Now before you read my dramatics as evidence of malice towards the institution of charter schools let me first assure you that none is intended. Teachers at charter schools make tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their students, often without the protection of the unions. And some charter schools are making tremendous strides in underserved communities. I have the utmost respect for anyone working to a make positive difference in the life of even one child. Nonetheless I wouldn't be worth my salt as a Title I Educator to deny the tension that exists.
You see, for teachers and administrators at public schools, charter schools are like a younger, more attractive sister. We know we're just as smart as our sibling, she's just bubblier and more popular. And even though her grades are even with ours, sometimes a little worse, she gets all the attention. She even gets lavished with gifts and praise for things we've been doing all along. I mean, really, what's the difference between a charter school and a Smaller Learning Community? Don't get me wrong, we still love our charter school sister, of course. But surely it’s understandable that we might be a little envious, it’s just human nature.
Charter schools are often treated like the favored child, leaving public schools feeling very unwanted and demoralized. Furthermore, the currently proposed program of educational austerity cuts public schools to their very core, while charter schools would emerge unscathed and more vibrant than ever before.
Districts like Liberty County in Florida might not be able to provide transportation or school lunches in the near future. Every school in that district has been labeled as failing and as will lose all of their federal funding by 2014 unless they receive an NCLB waiver. Shockingly, relief for states still hasn't been brought up for discussion in the Committee. In fact, the waivers proposed by Secretary Duncan have been met with resistance and threats of legal challenges.
So what is the exact nature of this vise grip on testing and adherence to these impossibly high proficiency targets? The education community is largely in agreement about the injustice and inadequacy of utilizing standardized tests to determine student progress so what gives? Why, with the economy in chronic disrepair and slash & burn spending cuts the necessary order du jour, is there such unwillingness to set aside, even temporarily, a testing requirement that costs more than $1 billion annually? Why would we spend that kind of money on something we know will go down in history as one of the most extraordinary "fails" in modern times?
Is it possible that allowing all of these schools to writhe and "fail" under NCLB is some sort of dark, twisted cost-saving technique that even I, the thriftiest of public finance observers can't fathom? I certainly hope not... although it would help pay for all those red carpets being rolled out for the charter schools. I guess we'll all just have to stay tuned.
~Kelle Stewart
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)