Archive for April, 2007

Education and Human Rights

Monday, April 30th, 2007

The notion that every child has a right to education may seem so obvious that we actually end up ignoring the deeper ramifications of what this statement means. Simply having a system of public schools is not sufficient.

Several organizations and groups are doing powerful work to frame educational discourse within the context of human rights. Yes! Magazine’s recent issue features an article describing the efforts of the Independent Commission on Public Education (ICOPE) towards whole school reform in New York City based on the human rights of students, parents, and local communities.

The Human Right to Education Program of the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative (NESRI), which is working with ICOPE on New York City reform, has a wealth of resources available on their website including links to the various international agreements ensuring the right to education. For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26 reads:

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

The section in italics is particularly interesting, as the current educational focus on a rigid academic curriculum, standardized testing, disrespectful attitudes to young people, little opportunity for empowerment and self-direction, and a hierarchical governance structure are completely at odds with the rights of young people and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. NESRI provides references to other international documents that provide for the right to education in similar terms, including the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

A recent research report by NESRI entitled Deprived of Dignity shows how middle and high school students in New York City and Los Angeles are mistreated and disrespected, and discusses how a human rights framework can help understand the harm being done to young people as well as provide a framework for changing these practices and creating an education based on human rights.

So what does an education based on human rights look like? Here are the principles NESRI sets out:

Individual Rights: Every individual child must have equal access to a quality education adapted to meet his or her needs.
Aims of education: The aims of education must be directed toward the development of each child’s personality and full potential, preparing children to participate in society and to do work that is rewarding and reasonably remunerative, and to continue learning throughout life.
Dignity: Schools must respect the inherent dignity of every child creating an environment of respect and tolerance in the classroom, preventing practices and disciplinary policies that cause harm or humiliation to children, and promoting self-confidence and self-expression.
Equity: There must be equitable distribution of resources in education across communities according to need.
Non-Discrimination: The government must ensure that the human right to education “will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Participation: Students, parents and communities have the right to participate in decisions that affect their schools and the right to education.

The only suggestion I would make to this excellent list is to draw on the tradition of Democratic Education, which calls for democracy and human rights in education, and add the following:

Self-Determination: Each young person has the right to direct his/her own education and to have a voice regarding all decisions that affect him/her.

Without that last principle, educational settings would violate the basic principle outlined in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Posted in Democratic Education, General Education News, NYC Education, Research and Reports | No Comments »

Closing Tilden High School

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

The NYC Department of Education is closing Samuel J. Tilden High School in phases over the next 3 years. While I would be the first to document the numerous problems inherent in larger schools such as Tilden (which has a population of 2,700 students – see Small Schools Workshop for more on this issue), a recent article in The Village Voice explores the complexity involved in actions such as this.

Specifically, this well-written article by Jessica Siegel reveals the harm that will likely be done to the young people in the Tilden neighborhood by replacing the school with several small schools that may take fewer students than Tilden, forcing hundreds of students to switch to even larger schools farther away. Moreover, the new small schools may not provide the resources needed to help the large number of English Language Learners currently at Tilden. While the smaller schools may be more nurturing and empowering environments, the cost of the change does not seem worth it. A counter proposal by some within Tilden to modify the large school into smaller learning communities could be an excellent alternative, but the DOE is rejecting any plan other than their own.

While I agree with the DOE that we need “radical reform,” I use the word radical literally to mean “of or going to the root or origin; fundamental” (Dictionary.com). Seen in this sense, radical reform requires us to go to the root of the issues and critically consider each and every aspect of education and schooling from the bottom up. This means we must critique such basic practices such as the required curriculum, testing, the conventional teacher-student relationship, grading, assessment, and much more.

The DOE’s definition of radical is frighteningly shallow if they mean replacing large conventional, hierarchical, undemocratic, test-based schools with smaller conventional, hierarchichal, undemocratic, test-based schools. And their vision of change is incredibly disrespectful to not consider thoughful alternatives from those within the schools and working with kids day in and day out. Very few changes or decisions can be positive and long-lasting without the engagement of all those affected by the decision. Why can’t the DOE recognize this basic truth!?

Posted in Education Policy, NYC Education | No Comments »

Preventing Virginia Tech

Tuesday, April 24th, 2007

The New York Times reported on a Senate committee that met yesterday to consider ways in which to prevent tragedies such as that of the recent shootings at Virginia Tech. After watching some of the committee meeting on C-Span and reading the Times article, I am once again deeply frustrated about the direction of the conversations following this tragedy (I say once again since this is the same pattern seen in the aftermath to Columbine and the various other school shootings in recent memory).

The focus in the Senate meeting and from the media in general is on how an institution can better recognize students with serious issues and deal with them. While this is certainly an important responsibility of a learning institution, K-12 or higher education, there is precious little discussion about a more fundamental issue: how a learning institution (or any institution in society) might be organized from the ground up so as to provide every individual with the support, care, and attention that all humans need and which is essential in an effort to prevent attacks such as this from happening.

This is not about blame, and I in no way join those who are blaming Virginia Tech for this tragedy. The deeper issue is that most media and our society in general rarely go to the root of issues. In this case, we must have a larger conversation about what makes up a healthy environment.

Regarding Columbine and other shootings in K-12 education, what is the effect of a factory-style structure wherein students shuffle from one room to the next being told what to do by others for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 10 months a year, and for 13 years in a row? (Not to mention the time outside of school doing homework and studying for the ever-increasing number of standardized high-stakes tests). Where is the caring, the personalized attention, the ability of young people to feel a sense of empowerment over their lives and their learning? On the college level, what is the effect of classes filled with hundreds of students, campuses filled with thousands, faculty who are encouraged to focus more on their own research or teaching than the lives and personalities of their students, and course requirements that leave little room for self-directed learning? Once again, this conventional structure lacks the caring, attention, and support that young people need to gain a strong sense of self and a connection to other human beings.

We need to broaden our understanding of what education is for. While the content curriculum, especially at the higher education level, is highly important, as important or even moreso is the hidden curriculum. Learning organizations “teach” not only content, but also values, relationships, and ways of being in the world. We must stop ignoring this truth.

What does this mean in practice? What can we do in schools and colleges on a fundamental level to prevent something like Virginia Tech? There is much we can do, and I could not even attempt an exhaustive list. But a few ideas might include:

- have conversations about the purpose of education at K-12 schools and college campuses around the country
- create smaller learning environments and break down larger environments into smaller learning communities
- establish a strong advisory system
- provide opportunities for students to take some control and initiative in designing their own education
- increase the number of teachers/faculty to students
- establish democratic and open conflict resolution systems to enable students and teachers/faculty to work together to solve problems
- engage students and adults together in making decisions about the organization

To add to this important conversation, I urge people to read a powerful piece by Chris Mercogliano, long-time teacher and director of The Albany Free School and author of Teaching the Restless, and Making it Up As We Go Along, responding to the Columbine tragedy in 1999. His words ring just as true today:

“The Teachings of Tragedy” (after clicking, scroll down briefly to the start of the article).

Posted in Education Policy, General Education News | No Comments »

Challenge to Non-Government Schools in The Netherlands

Sunday, April 1st, 2007

This is from Hannah de Vos-Beckers, founder and staff member at Aventurijn School, a democratic non-government school in the Netherlands, describing a serious challenge to all non-government schools in her country. Following Hannah’s note and request for letters of suppport is a detailed description and analysis of the proposal law, as well as samples of letters from individuals around the world.

To help the Dutch fight this policy, you can send letters to Hannah directly at hannah@aventurijn.org as well as to the Dutch government at an address supplied by Hannah: cie.ocw@tweedekamer.nl.

Send letters before April 3, which is when the government will be voting on this measure.

*****

From Hannah:

Dear colleagues and friends,

Tuesday 3th of April the Dutch government will vote about a new law of education. In short this law makes the educational rules for private schools the same as for the goverment schools. That means the end for a lot of private schools, also the democratic schools like Aventurijn, Iederwijs and others. That means the end of freedom of education in a country that is proud of being a democratic country!!

In government there is a very small minority that sees the danger of this law, majority thinks it is a good law that makes private (democratic) schools disappear and the same rules for everybody!

We are very busy with awakening the people and the government.
So my question to you is: do you want to write a letter in which you tell about the importance of freedom of education?
You can reply this mail, so we can send it to the persons in government who have to vote next week.

Thank you a lot!

Hannah de Vos-Beckers

*****

Description and analysis of proposed law:

OPEN LETTER Loenen, Wednesday 26 March 2007

Members of the Houses of Parliament,

Tuesday the 23rd of March, the House of Commons debated concerning the bill to adaptation of the Law on Compulsory Education (LCE). Goal is: bringing the public schools and the private (read: pioneering) schools in one line control. The process leading to this bill is controversial. Several Councils and other Governmental Institutions have advised negatively or are not even heard at all.

The Governments Educational Inspection reported already in August 2006, that true innovation has become impossible since the “Law on Educational Inspection 2002”.At the time only valid for higher education, due to the new LCE, innovation has become impossible on ALL levels.

The State-Council was very clear in its criticism on the amending proposal: The planned amendment puts an end to freedom of education! The Council made further observations concerning the need of the proposal, the constitutional implications and the transition aspects. The recommendations were negative in every aspect. The Council even criticises the complete necessity of the amendment where it states: “it is recognised that the legal basis on which the Government can enforce quality requirements is already present.” Putting additional law into action is therefore superfluous.

The Education Council, the Government’s main Education advisory council, has not even been heard at all!! This council stated in 2002, in negative advise to the forming of the Law of Educational Inspection, that this law should not be the instrument for Educational quality-improvement. Of course, it is likely that this Council is opposed to this youngest amendment too.

This proposal to Law on Compulsory Education is said to be developed “in consultation” with the educational field. That is only seen from one point of view. ” the education field ” feels itself manipulated.

The core of the matter is this: The well-known methods and fixed programmes are not appropriate for all pupils. The enormous numbers of truants, the large numbers of school-leavers and the aggression in schools show this clearly. There needs to be space
for pioneering schools. There needs to be space for children to learn on the basis of their own brio, their own tempo and in their own manner. Fear for “Muslim schools”, indicated by the chief inspector of the education earlier as the main reason lying behind this amendment to the law, may not put an end to freedom of education.

Mentioned below is an enumeration of the most fundamental lacks where the bill leads to i.e. what is does not change:

LEGALLY:

• No possibility has been created for a counter-evaluation on an inspection report. That is absolutely necessary. The Inspection hardly understands the pioneers.

• There is no institute accredited to deliver “equivalence declarations” (these are well known in the world of Dutch construction)

• The authority of a school is responsible for the quality of their education, but has no legal status in procedures and therefore cannot go for higher appeal against a judgement of the inspection. Parents, in cases of a negative inspection-report on the school, face criminal charges. These criminal charges may be handled by the public prosecutor without involvement of a judge.

• Private schools on which a negative inspection report is published can be closed directly, without getting further time to make improvements. This condition does not apply to public schools. That is improper justice.

POLICY:

• By means of the enforcement of the current criteria for subsidized schools to the private schools, an obligatory, extensively detailed, but undesirable “break” between basic – and higher education. Several private schools support an uninterrupted development (just like the legislature!)

• Individual profiles become impossible in this law. The private schools and students are forced to follow the profiles and the detailed schemes of the so-called “Mammoth-law”. (Yes, mammoths are extinct) The majority of private schools have deep-rooted reasons to consider such profiles as one of the main problems in public education and therefore reject these.

CONCLUSIONS:

This adaptation of the Law on Compulsory Education is:

• Superfluous, because badly performing schools already can be tackled;
• Stalemate, because it terminates the own responsibility of parents;
• Untimely, because new education need a larger time-frame to prove itself
• Dangerous, because
➢ elementary judicial foundations are violated;
➢ because the freedom of education “de facto” disappears
➢ because the minister can curtail further freedom of education without consulting Government
➢ because necessary innovation will be no longer possible;
➢ because more and more mistrust is institutionalised and that the government and the citizen become divided.

Michaël de Vos,
Aventurijn

*****

Samples from letters sent to The Netherlands – compiled largely from AERO’s email listserves. To be added to the listserves, email AERO Director Jerry Mintz at jerryaero@aol.com.

“Each of you who places a vote is a separate individual, each with the power to say no. Please think very carefully before you become responsible for yet another step in the devastating mono-culturing of our world.

Juli Gassner
Assistant Principal
Gardeners Rd Primary School
Sydney, Australia
redheadjuli@bigpond.com”

” Currently there are private schools in your country that serve as models for the democratic style of education, a style that is expanding around the world right now, satisfying many families and communities. This valuable learning approach will be destroyed if this new law is enacted, surely not what is intended? If so, I would be deeply disappointed and surprised that a country known for progressive and experimental ideas would have produced such a negative outcome for education–it would be chilling indeed.”

Sally Rosloff
sallyr@socal. rr.com
California, United States

“Why must those in power reduce the personal powers and opinions of others? This imperial attitude is patronising and can only come from hidden fears. There is enough of that already in the world, so why add deperesonalisation to classrooms the like of which is found in barrack rooms”

Christopher Gilmore

“Together with Denmark, the Netherlands are viewed as
enlightened and progressive in regard to educational policy and practice in
other parts of Western Europe such as the UK and Ireland. It is vitally
important therefore that govermental support and tolerance of democratic
schools in Europe is continued, strenghthened and extended throughout.”

Alison Cordingley
County Cork
Ireland

“Having different schools and
different options for the education of your children will strengthen
your country not weaken it.”

Moe Zimmerberg
The Tutorial School
Santa Fe, NM, USA

“Two years ago I attended some public schools in the Netherlands as well as the Aventurijn Free School in Loenen. I was simply astounded by the zest for life, general enthusiasm for learning and above all the amount of knowledge that the children of Aventurijn demonstrated. During my many years of teaching I had never witnessed the likes of that in any school in South Africa.”

Douwe van der Zee
Teacher, facilitator and author of Wisdom of the Most Conventional Kind?

“Het zou jammer zijn als een vrij land, zoals Nederland, minder vrijheid aan haar kinderen kan aanbieden dan een klein, arm land in Afrika.”

Met de beste wensen,

Gerard Mathot, Seliba Sa Boithuto

“Democratic education is now offered to over 40,000 children around the world
in over two hundred places, in more than 30 countries, and the movement is
growing all the time. Holland is seen as a leader in this development.
…… If the government in the Netherlands can throw itself behind such innovation, it
will retain its image as an example for the future.”

David Gribble, U.K

“For the last few years I have been reading in Ode–a Dutch magazine of contemporary culture–all kinds of accounts of the radical and visionary schools in Holland, schools that have been an inspiration to educators all over the world. I wonder if Holland now really wants to go backwards, maybe even further back that America has gone.”

Todd Pratum, Pratum School & Library, USA

Posted in Democratic Education, Education Policy, International News | No Comments »