Candidate notion of NCLB is sooo 2005

“I've had a lot of discussions with teachers all throughout Iowa. And they feel betrayed and frustrated by No Child Left Behind,” said Senator Barrack Obama at the Democratic (pre-)Presidential Debate in Iowa this past Sunday.

Like many teachers, I took notice of this comment, sitting up slightly on my couch and leaning toward the television, eager to hear more.

“[Teachers] can't be judged simply on standardized tests that don't take into account whether children are prepared before they get to school or not,” he said.

“YES!” I thought. “And, at the same time……..No.”

I know that many teachers have felt betrayed and frustrated by NCLB and refer to the legislation with scathing language. I believe that Senator Obama was sincere in his attempts to be thoughtful and responsive to the anger that teachers have experienced.

Obama’s comments, however, reflect the attitude that educators held several years ago, when educators and administrators were furious at the legislation for its heavy performance demands and severe financial consequences that rendered schools ineffective. The angry maxims of ‘Teaching to the Test’ were teachers’ expressions of powerlessness.

What is true now, however, is a new understanding in education—one that is rooted in the mandated education standards, and is achieved by putting authority back in the hands of teachers.

The process is called ‘Strategic Design’ by some, ‘Backwards Design’ by others, or more simply ‘Standards Based Instruction.’ I know, from first hand experience, the process is being taught at the University of Michigan and implemented with astounding success in high-needs charter schools in Los Angeles.

The general concept—Students need to learn the material that is mandated in state standards, and they deserve to learn it to proficiency. They must know it up and down, constructed and deconstructed. They must know why its true, how we know its true, and where it is relevant to their everyday lives. If students can grasp the concepts at this higher level of thinking, then they have all the knowledge necessary to excel on a standardized test that examines that material.

To anyone who is impassioned about educating America’s youth, this notion seems like a “Duh.” But the reality is that students are not being taught this way in many American schools. Students are memorizing, not synthesizing. Textbooks, not standards, are dictating what material will be taught. Furthermore, teachers are grasping at scattered techniques, strategies and activities that do not do justice to their own skills to know and to teach their students.

It is no wonder that NCLB caused teachers to feel betrayed; the legislation was an attempt to bully struggling teachers into success, rather than supporting them and trusting them to find their way. Now, however, teachers are beginning to move past the anger and the betrayal. They are responding to the problems in education and they are creating real solutions.

The new message in Education is this: Teachers have found focus and faith in their mission to teach; No child will be left behind.

Wanted: Secretary of Education for 'Leader of the Free World,' preferably with little to no background in K-12 education.

It is my secret ambition to be the Secretary of Education in the United States. Apparently, I should quit teaching and go to Law School….

Shirley Hufstedler
November 1979 – January 1981, under Jimmy Carter
University of New Mexico, B.B.A., 1945
Stanford Law School, LL.B., 1949
Private legal practice, Los Angeles, California, (1950-1961)
Special legal consultant to California State Attorney General, (1960-1961)
Judge, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, (1961-1966)
Associate justice, California Court of Appeals, (1966-1968)

Terrel Bell
January 1981 – January 1985, under Ronald Reagan
Southern Idaho College of Education, B.A., 1946
University of Idaho, M.A., 1954, University of Utah, Ph.D. in Education 1961.
Taught at the high school level, (1946-1947)
Served as professor and chairman of the department of educational administration at Utah State University, (1962-1963)
Worked as the superintendent of public instruction for all of the public schools in Utah (1963-1970).

William J. Bennett
February 1985 – 1988, under Ronald Reagan
Williams College, B.A. in philosophy
University of Texas, Ph.D., in philosophy Harvard University, JD
Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1981-1985)

Lauro Cavazos *
September 1988 – December 1990, under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush
Texas Tech University, B.A, and M.A., in zoology Iowa State University, Ph.D., physiology
Taught at the Medical College of Virginia
Dean at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, (1975- 1980) President of Texas Tech University,(1980-1988)

Lamar Alexander
March 1991 – January 1993, under George H.W. Bush
Vanderbilt University B.A., 1962
New York University Law School, JD, 1965
Clerked for U.S. circuit judge Minor Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana (1965-1966)
Served as legislative assistant for U.S. Senator Howard Baker
Governor of Tennessee (1979-1987)

Richard Riley
January 1993 – January 2001, under Bill Clinton
Furman University, B.A., 1954
University of South Carolina, JD, 1959
U.S. Navy Minesweeper, (1954-1956)
State representative and state senator in South Carolina, (1963-1977)
Governor of South Carolina, (1978-1982)

Roderick Paige
January 2001 – January 2005, under George W. Bush
Jackson State University, B.A.
Indiana University., M.A., Ph.D.,
Teacher and a coach
Dean of the College of Education at Texas Southern University (TSU)
Established the university's Center for Excellence in Urban Education

Margaret Spellings
February 2005 – Present, under George W. Bush
University of Houston, B.A., Political Science
Senior Advisor to Governor George W. Bush
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy

Trying to teach in South Central Los Angeles

For the past several weeks, I’ve been working at a charter school in South Central Los Angeles. The charter organization is dedicated to providing education to students who have been ‘unsuccessful in traditional classrooms.’ The students are gang members, wards of the state, on probation, and former Youth Camp inmates. Many of the students have children; even more of them are without parents. In the past week my classroom was broken into, there was one fight, one student went to jail, three students were caught gambling with dice, and I had food thrown in my face…twice.

This is not meant as a litany of complaints. I am simply trying to share the nuances of my experience and to record realities that might be of interest to those who are dedicated to education reform. Clearly, these kids are in a situation that requires drastic action.

Many administrators at the school have tried to reassure me and to praise my efforts in working with at-risk youth. “They will test you,” I am often told. “It’s only because they have abandonment issues. They will grow to love you if you just stick it out.”

Another staff member was more grave in her analysis, “They resent you because you’re white,” she said. Every white person the students have ever met either wanted to fix them or to punish them. I can see how my role as a teacher fits neatly into that stereotype.

But the general sentiment is always the same, “You’re doing good. Just don’t let the students scare you off.”

I submitted my resignation on Friday, but not because the students ran me off. The students were the best part of the job and the only reason I wanted to stay.

For all the anger and hate that they espoused, I loved the students (well, I loved many of them…). Sure, they tested me, but we bonded. They wanted me to teach them. They craved an education.

I left because of the administration. Like the students, I need stability and guidance. I am only a first year teacher and I am still, sometimes, unsure of what to do. The administration at the school was not able to help me. The principal was splitting his time between five school sites. The English teacher was often MIA, pursuing other jobs because he was not receiving his paycheck. My Teaching Assistant was transferred to a different school site last Thursday. There were days when the entire school was run by substitutes; anyone who has ever been a high schooler can guess how the students behaved on those days.

I described the situation as being on the wrong side of a revolving door; each time new staff came and went I was getting hit in the face by the door’s swing. Much to my surprise, the other staff members supported my decision. They understood my feelings perfectly, since my experiences echoed their own.

In many ways, this situation demonstrates a critical need in Education Reform. Too often, reform policies target the classroom; curriculum is mandated, resources are distributed, or teacher quality is stringently assessed. These were not, however, the issues that I encountered. (Although I think the argument could be made that my lack of experience was a contributor to my difficulties).

Instead, I think reform efforts should take the shape of a Top-Down approach. In order to create successful schools, we need successful administrators and an iron-clad infrastructure. To thrust quality teachers into negative situations and expect them to produce positive classrooms is faulty. I can say from personal experience that the teachers in this situation will burn out, no matter how much heart or dedication they possess.

This is not to say that teachers need helicopter administrators hovering over their every action. Rather, the key to empowering teachers to create a dynamic learning environment is offering those teachers support, comradery, and a solid foundation to build from.

Archived Blog: P.S., I am a teacher

Posted to RooseveltInstitution.org/Blog by Virginia C Bailey on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:22 PST

Today, I discovered that someone else wrote the blog I’ve been itching to write.

Susan Graham, a member of the Teacher Leaders Network, penned the article “Why We Need Teachers at the Policy Table” in Teacher Magazine.

I am bound to keep my response to this article short, in hopes that readers will click the link to Ms. Graham’s original piece. Her insights are thoughtful and even-handed. Her analysis is true and exact. Most importantly, her straightforward vision (or agenda) for action is a veritable response to the gaps in the Education policy process.

I admired the article because each sentence rang true, as I am sure the reader will discover upon clicking the link above.

I also, however, was drawn to the article because it resonated with me on a personal level. This article cast a spotlight on my own shortcomings as a participant in the policy process.

I recognize a gap in my blogs. It is the same gap that Susan Graham recognizes in the Education policy process at large—the absence of teachers.

The absence of a teacher’s voice in my blogs is paradoxical, as I am a teacher. I have hesitated to include my professional identity and my personal experiences in these blogs for a host of reasons. But, Susan Graham has forced me to atone for this mistake and to encourage the inclusion of the personal in the political.

As members of Roosevelt, we possess the traits that Graham praises. We are ‘On The Ground Researchers’ because we gravitate to policy arenas that stir us emotionally or impact us personally. We have credibility by virtue of our first hand experiences. We are cautious, because we recognize the long-term interests of our generation. And, we are altruistic in our youthful vision (may we never grow out of it).

This is not to say that we, as Roosevelters, should allow the idiosyncrasies of our personal experiences to direct our efforts. Rather, that our personal histories serve as the core of our efforts. They fill the shell of our broad vision with a heart, a soul, and an energy.

I am a teacher in an at risk school in south central Los Angeles, and I think it is time that I start expressing my policy vision as such.

Permanent link: http://rooseveltinstitution.org/blog/post/168/p_s_i_am_a_teacher

Archived Blog: Answers from Secretary Spellings

Posted to RooseveltInstitution.org/Blog by Virginia C Bailey on Thu, 24 May 2007 06:51 PST

My last blog commented on H.R. 1994 and proposed new methods to improve the student loan system. I concluded the blog by mentioning that Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings would be testifying before the House Committee on Education and Labor.

As a typical American college student, I missed the CSPAN broadcast, but I did eagerly tune in for Secretary Spellings’ appearance on The Daily Show with John Stewart.

True to form, the show began with some witty banter involving #2 pencils, Lunchables, the food pyramid, and the peculiar medical condition which renders the Executive Branch allergic to John Stewart.

As the interview continued, however, John Stewart invited Secretary Spellings to comment on what makes Education such a ‘bedeviling’ problem:

“If you’re the education god and you could change one thing….you could smite the teachers union if you wish….you could make it rain frogs, which would just be cool….In a perfect world, what is the most vexing part of this whole situation?”

Secretary Spellings’ replied “Low Expectations.”

I am disappointed to note that, yet again, a member of government has fallen short in answering questions and proposing solutions to the growing fissures in the education system.

I could explain my judgment of Secretary Spellings at length, but that would make this blog a litany of The Problems, rather than The Solutions. Suffice to say, that in a vision of the perfect world, expecting Rocket Science of America’s children would do nothing to put them on the path to achieving such goals.

Rather, I suggest that the appropriate answer to the question John Stewart posed, is “Every American must feel personally responsible for the education of every child.”

In our current society, many Americans support the education of children, but that is not enough.

Firstly, the obvious strength in numbers of Every vs Many.

Secondly, there is a significant difference between supporting education and feeling personally responsible for it. I believe that our nation supports education; we vote for candidates who propose education reform and we pay taxes to support the schools. Americans care about education. They do not, however, feel responsible for it. When the system fails, and it is failing, Americans are saddened and frustrated but they do not acknowledge their own culpability as part of the system and their own responsibility for educating the next generation.

Finally, a goal of educating America’s children is not enough. Such a goal addresses faceless masses of indistinct youth. In this scenario, the United States’ 99% literacy rate is a remarkable success. But, in reframing our goal to educate every individual child, we must consider the failures. We must see the face and hear the name of each individual who falls through the cracks. Suddenly, failure to educate one child is failure intotale. It is unacceptable.

In conclusion, I hope that the members of Roosevelt will join me in reflecting on our responsibility in the education of a child.

In truth, I hope that Secretary Spellings and members of Congress will join us in these reflections as well.

Permanent link: http://rooseveltinstitution.org/blog/post/158/answers_from_secretary_spellings

Archived Blog: Reforming the Student Loan System; What H.R. 1994 missed

Posted to RooseveltInstitution.org/Blog by Virginia C Bailey on Thu, 10 May 2007 07:49 PST

This Wednesday, the House passed a bill to regulate the relationship between private loan lenders and student loan officers. The bill, which passed by a 414-3 vote, requires new codes of conduct and bans gifts and payments from lenders to colleges in return for a position on “preferred lender” lists. The bill is largely seen as a progressive attempt to clean up the $85 billion student loan industry.

The effort by the House is commendable, as it seeks to correct the serious moral failure of college loan officers and private lenders by exchanging gifts and payments.

The bill, however, neglects other underlying failures of the student loan system, which must also be addressed.

Firstly, federal, state, and university financial programs have failed to provide financial options for students.

The bill passed in the House is testament to the increased pressence of private lenders in the student loan market. The reformed code of conduct for college-lender relationships will decrease the likelihood that a current college student will sign for a private loan with a 12% variable interest rate from a so-called ‘preferred lender’ when a 6% fixed interest rate is available elsewhere. Admittedly, these savings could be substantial if the loan in question is large. The underlying reality, then, is that the current college student is in need of large supplimentary loans from private lenders.

The best way to provide more savings to more students, however, would be to increase the availability of scholarships, grants, and fixed low-interest loans. The House should refocus its reform efforts on the Pell Grant, the Perkins, and the Stafford Loans.

Secondly, the ongoing failure to care for and aid those students who are enrolled in college fuels an ongoing failure to increase aid and access for those students who are excluded from college.

The reforms mandated by the House bill might improve financial options for students who take out private loans. Such reforms, however, only aid students who are credit worthy. There is still no aid available to college hopefuls from lower income families that do not qualify for private loans. These students will remain excluded from financial assistance and thus excluded from access to college. Further reform of the loan system, such as a credit-blind program backed by the federal government, is necessary in order for financial aid to become available to those students who need it most.

Finally, the House bill reflects a failure on the part of the federal government and the Department of Education to oversee the student loan program and to intervene in defense of student interests.

To this end, Theresa S. Shaw, the Education Department official responsible for overseeing the loan program, has resigned and Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings will testify to a Congressional committee today to answer questions about oversight of the student loan program.

I, for one, am itching to hear her answers.

Permanent link: http://rooseveltinstitution.org/blog/post/142/reforming_the_student_loan_system_what_h_r_1994_missed

Archived Blog: For your consideration; a new dialogue on higher ed access and immigration policy

Posted to RooseveltInstitution.Org/Blog by Virginia C Bailey on Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:20 PST

In November of 2006, the state of Michigan voted and passed, with a 58% majority, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or Proposal 2. Passage of this proposal amended Article 1 Section 26 of the State Constitution to include language forbidding “preferential treatment,” in addition to discrimination, based on race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education or contracting arrangements. In the dialogue that has followed Prop2’s passage, much attention has been given to the ramifications for minority races, females, and students from underprivileged backgrounds. Little consideration has been given, however, to the question of ‘national origin,’ or more specifically, access to education for American immigrants. This oversight is regrettable; to omit immigrants from the dialogue on education access is to deny millions of Americans the resources for success.

Considered in light of American attitudes, it’s clear why education access for non-nationals might fall to the way side; America is no longer the welcoming refuge it once was. Instead of jobs, homes and apple pie, prospective citizens are offered a bureaucratic run-around, an indefinite stay in a detention facility, or a warm reception from armed civilian minutemen guarding the southern border. In the last several decades, Americans have exhibited an aversion to immigration, both legal and otherwise. American nationalism remains grounded in the idea that privileges for others occur at the expense of American opportunities. Such sentiments are the underpinning of Proposal 2.

The regents and administrators at the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University have worked diligently to bolster access to higher education while restructuring admissions processes in light of Proposal 2’s passage. In line with these efforts, the University of Michigan is taking steps to open the dialogue on immigration and access to higher education. With regards to Proposal 2 and national origin, the University asserts “U-M works to build a learning community that is broadly diverse, and that includes welcoming students, staff and faculty from all across the globe. These international scholars contribute to our vibrant intellectual community.”

To continue this open dialogue, The National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good at the University of Michigan has announced a national working conference entitled Challenges and Opportunities; Conversations about Immigration and Higher Education. The three day conference aims at engaging educators, community leaders, state higher education officers, legislators, students, researchers, educational administrators, policy makers and others in a ground breaking discussion on immigration and education access. Furthermore, the conference promises to develop an agenda and a course of action to encourage access to education for immigrants.

While the conference boasts some distinguished participants-- John Quinones of ABC Primetime News and Charles Reed, the Chancellor of California State University, have confirmed participation-- the Director of the National Forum, Dr. John C. Burkhardt, remains committed to including a student voice. To this end, he has extended an open invitation to the students of the Roosevelt Institution.

Having acknowledged the American fear that privilege and opportunity is a zero-sum game, it follows that American students would reject increased access to higher education for immigrants in fear that opportunities for immigrants will limit admissions or funding for citizens. To do so, however, would prove more costly to American students.

The value of education rests in exposure; to new ideas, to new challenges, and to new people. Education is meaningful because it demands that the student step outside their comfort zone and their egocentricity and learn to function as a member of a greater, and diverse, society. To this end, colleges and universities in Michigan have been committed to building diverse communities where creative and dynamic energies can collide. This vision is only realized, however, when those energies are different. Such differences include race, gender, sex, religion, political thought, and also national understandings. A complete and meaningful education demands the inclusion of all peoples. The exclusion of any perspective is a discriminatory act which breeds biased understandings.

In a November 8 address to the University of Michigan community, President Mary Sue Coleman affirmed the need for diversity in education, saying “Diversity makes us strong, and it is too critical to our mission, too critical to our excellence, and too critical to our future to simply abandon. This applies to our state as much as our University. Michigan’s public universities and our public bodies must be more determined than ever to provide opportunities for women and minorities, who make up the majority of our citizenry.”

Let us not forget that immigrants are significant members of our citizenry and contributors to our society and must also be offered access and opportunities.

Permanent link: http://rooseveltinstitution.org/blog/post/128/for_your_consideration_a_new_dialogue_on_higher_ed_access_and_immigration_policy