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.

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.