Archive for the ‘Framing and Public Outreach’ Category

Who Do We Engage in Conversations about Education?

Monday, March 23rd, 2009

Two education opinion pieces in the New York Times the past two days have got me thinking about who we seek to engage with in conversation about education.  For those passionate about and working for educational change, the short answer might be “anyone and everyone,” right?   Well, recently I’ve been wondering if that would be the best use of our time.

To demonstrate what I mean, I’ll briefly describe the two education pieces.  The first, by NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof in yesterday’s paper, discussed Washington DC Chancellor of Schools Michelle Rhee’s approach to educational reform, focusing on identifying good and bad teachers, and rewarding or getting rid of them based on their results (aka test scores).  The second, appearing in today’s paper by education writer E.D. Hirsch, Jr., proposes more content-specific curriculum and standards so that students will have the knowledge background to score better on tests.

While both pieces unfortunately take an uncritical look at the practice of assessing students and teachers based on test scores, the two writers come from very different starting points.  Hirsch’s argument begins with a fundamental stance on the importance of content standards for all children.  Looking into his many books confirms this, with titles such as What Your Kindergartner Needs to Know, What Your First Grader Needs to Know, and Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know.  And here is an excerpt from Hirsch’s op-ed:

These much maligned, fill-in-the-bubble reading tests are technically among the most reliable and valid tests available. The problem is that the reading passages used in these tests are random. They are not aligned with explicit grade-by-grade content standards.

Meanwhile, Kristof’s starting point is that education in the U.S. reflects a deep injustice and “national shame,” and that education itself can be a powerful force for societal change, as he writes in yesterday’s piece:

Education reform could be the most potent antipoverty program in the country, and Ms. Rhee represents the vanguard in this struggle to try new tools to revive American schools.

Just as Hirsch’s starting point with content-standards is clear from his previous writing, Kristof’s social justice, human rights-based starting point is also apparent from his previous columns about the fighting and devastation in Sudan, and the sex trafficking of women around the world, among other topics.

Which leads me to the point that, given that there is an urgent need to work for educational change according to human rights and democratic values and that our personal time and energy is limited, we ought to consider how open people are to questioning their assumptions about education and re-thinking their positions.  Perhaps Hirsch, whose core educational stance seems to be the importance of specific pieces of knowledge, may be less likely to think about democratic education than Kristof, who already bases his reporting on the very same values that are at the core of democratic education – namely, participatory decision-making, individual freedom, personal responsibility, and social justice.

The implication being that when there is a choice of who to engage with and reach out to, it may be wise to target those who appear more open and who appear to share one’s values, rather than getting stuck speaking with those who seem to be strongly lined up against those values.  This does not mean some people should be completely dismissed, and for sure there will be times when we guess wrongly about where people stand.

Yet, we can get bogged down if we focus on those who are strongly set against our views and are most vocal about it (because, let’s face it, people with the most polarizing of views are often the most emphatic).  We may even get burned-out and never realize that while we’ve been putting our energy into the several dozens of outspoken critics we’ve missed out on the several hundreds or several thousands of sometimes quieter potential allies.  And I do know that indeed there are many more people who are closer than farther to the views of this blog: that education ought to reflect and practice the democratic values and human rights that our nation and our world hold dear.

So, (as hard as it is to not respond passionately to E.d. Hirsch, Jr. every time he writes something new) let’s not expend all our energy on those who, at least for now, are set in their beliefs in a standardized educational model.   Instead, let’s target, identify, and reach out to those people who already know that every sector of our society must reflect and practice the values of a democracy if we are to build a more just, sustainable, productive, and peaceful world.  Perhaps they already work for justice in a different sector, such as housing or immigrant rights or world hunger.  Perhaps they always tell you about new happenings in the fields of sustainable energy or equal rights for same-sex couples.  And perhaps they’d be open to transferring those same motivations for justice and personalization to the education and youth realm.

It is these individuals who can help lay the groundwork for a grassroots, people-powered movement to hold school leaders and policy-makers accountable for an education system and practice guided by our democratic values.

ps – as I posted this, I found a word cloud of Hirsch’s op-ed on Wordle, and decided to do one for Kristof’s, as well as my own post about them both.  Thought you might find them intriguing (thanks Gretchen for the Wordle link).  You can find these and make your own at www.Wordle.net:

Hirsch Wordle

Kristof Wordle 

Today’s DE Blog post  (also shown below)

wordle_image_of_de_post_3232009.jpg

Posted in Education Advocacy, Education Policy, Framing and Public Outreach | 2 Comments »

How to Talk to People about Democratic Education

Sunday, February 15th, 2009

Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times op-ed columnist who has powerfully highlighted lesser-known fights for justice, including the conflicts in Sudan and the trafficking of girls and women around the world, has recently entered the national dialogue on education with some op-eds.  Kristof’s points are important for those in the democratic education world to consider, not only because of the platform he has as a columnist for the Times, but also because the arguments he makes reflect commonly-held assumptions about what is “good” education.  As Melia Dicker has written recently (thanks for the inspiration, Melia), we do our cause a huge disservice by responding with anger or dismissiveness rather than listening and understanding others’ perspectives, followed by responding with empathy, personal stories, and respectful questions and dialogue.

In his most recent column in today’s Times, Kristof speaks about education as the nation’s most crucial issue, and celebrates the influx of education funding that will result from the newly-passed $787 billion stimulus bill, of which $100 billion or more will go to education.  I agree with him that additional funding can do wonders: we need more funding in order to improve the awful conditions in so many schools that Jonathan Kozol and others have unearthed, as well as to prevent the firing of teachers and the increasing of class sizes (not to mention one of the most important funding aid needed in education, that of equitable funding for students in all districts so that communities with lower property tax intake can receive additional support – though that is highly controversial and not part of this spending bill).

But it is Kristof’s suggestions to solve the education crisis that I want to address.  He focuses on the need for better teachers, saying, “good teachers matter more than anything; they are astonishingly important.”  It would be hard for me to disagree, in that it surely matters a great deal what kind of adults are with our young people each day.  And from my own experiences, he does have a point that many of “America’s best teachers overwhelmingly teach America’s most privileged students.”  While I take issue with that generalization and know that many wonderful and committed teachers work with disadvantaged students, I also personally know a great many inspiring, passionate, and dedicated people who either work in private schools or have fled teaching altogether.

However, what Kristof may not have considered is that some of these dedicated educators have fled to less restrictive schools or from the teaching profession completely not because they lack a sense of duty to those less privileged, but because the standardization of the learning process and the high-stakes element of assessment – that is, the anti-learning, anxiety-provoking system of rewards and punishments doled out to teachers, students, and schools based largely on the multiple-choice test scores of students – that are required of public schools drives such creative and inspiring people away.  It seems entirely understandable that “good” teachers, even those deeply committed to social justice, who want to bring in their own personality and passions and to inspire the curiosity and independence of young people, would choose to work in a school that supports such personalization and flexibility in learning.  Or simply leave education.

Which makes me think that perhaps what is needed are not necessarily or only “good” teachers, but also a critical look at the impacts that the standardization and high-stakes testing movement is having on student motivation for learning and teacher motivation to teach.

And going even deeper, I’d like to talk to Kristof about how we determine what is a “good” teacher, or what it means to be a “successful” student or school.  I have seen some amazing teachers.  I think of one great teacher who would always take whatever time was necessary to have extensive conversations with each of her students about the students’ interests and help them determine the next steps they should take to pursue those interests, be they genetic engineering, music composing and performing, or computer programming (her school allowed for such open conversation during the school day).  And I think of an incredibly successful high school where students can teach classes to other students, choose from an exciting array of relevant classes, pursue independent study in topics of interest, take internships with businesses or artists in the neighborhood, and participate equally with teachers in the decision-making processes of the school.  [Some of these schools are listed here, and there are many other great schools and teachers doing similar great work around the country].

So when I think of “good” or “great” in education, I immediately think of such things as support for curiosity and individual interest, deep intellectual engagement, community participation in the governing of the school, and the development of strong relationships among students and adults.  And I find it odd that so many people, including progressive social justice fighters such as Kristof, look immediately for results on multiple-choice test scores to determine “success.”  Where in that determination is the individuality, the heart, the intellectual engagement, and the social sense that we want most for ourselves, for others, and supposedly for our children?

To be clear, I do believe that the development of reading and writing and math and other academic skills are important for success in life.  But, the question I’d like to respectfully ask those who make comments such as those by Kristof is, “At what cost?”  At what cost to young people do we focus on improving test scores?  What is the cost of adding more and more high-stakes tests?  Of longer school days filled with more test prep (such as that at the KIPP schools Kristof and others have been talking about lately)?  Of standardization in learning where individual interest must be put aside in favor of the same curriculum for all students?  Isn’t it possible to build environments that support young people to develop those academic skills while also developing self-determination, compassion for others, and deep critical thinking? At the very least, we need to consider answers to these questions.

Since the overwhelming majority of us went to traditional, conventional schools and currently send our children to such schools, we have long been immersed in the conventional wisdom about education, e.g. that high test scores = “good,” that rewards and punishments are beneficial, that everyone needs to learn the same thing at the same time.  So it is not a surprise to me that most people support such traditional ideas.  In fact, in high school I was as high-achieving, test-cramming of a student as you’d ever meet.  It was not until late college that I heard about other approaches to teaching and learning and realized that perhaps I had been wrong all along: that the stress and pressure from the school and from myself only hurt me and stifled my own sense of discovery about who I was and what I wanted to do with my life.

So my hope now is that we can help people like Nicholas Kristof and the many others out there who believe in freedom, personal responsibility, shared decision-making, and social justice, to bring those deeply-held democratic values into the education sphere and give young people the chance to develop as complete human beings, to find their spark and niche in this world, and to help build a more productive, sustainable, and peaceful society.

***

I crafted these thoughts here as a response to Kristof and his op-ed, but I wrote it in part to think about how we talk with others about democratic education, especially those who seem to reflect common assumptions that we find questionable.  In my response here I’ve tried to do follow a few principles:

  • Be empathetic: acknowledge the others’ perspective, let them know you are listening to them
  • Identify points of agreement
  • Bring in one’s own self and personal stories about education
  • Respectfully question and start a dialogue regarding commonly-held assumptions and points of difference. One thing to remember about this is to not dismiss the opinion with which you disagree, but to mention that you understand how and why they may hold such a belief (e.g. they went through conventional schooling themself).   Otherwise you run the risk of coming off as arrogant and may make the other person dislike you or simply stop listening.
  • Frame your position within a larger societal vision and grounded in democratic values. This deeper framework can connect with people when educational terminology such as student-directed learning and democratic decision-making may be too abstract or different from the norm to capture their attention and interest. Plus, it shows that democratic education exists within a long and broad fight for human freedom and that it has great potential to positively impact the direction that our society takes in the future.
  • Humor.  (Actually, I didn’t bring in this element – I focus so much on ideas that I find myself forgetting to bring in humor.  It’s something I want to work on and that I think can be a great part of discussing these often intense issues).

***

Well, that’s a start on this topic of how we talk to others about education.  I’ll write more here on this as time goes on, and would love to hear what others think.

…By the way, I want to salute Nicholas Kristof for his own respectful entry into the education arena, acknowledging in an online post his own lack of experience with this topic.  Which brings to mind another key element to bring to the dialogue: humility.  Thanks, Nicholas.

Posted in Democratic Education, Education Advocacy, Education Policy, Framing and Public Outreach, General Education News | 1 Comment »

A Larger Vision for Democratic Education

Friday, September 26th, 2008

I’ve been reading an excellent book about the history of youth organizing and progressive politics, Youth to Power by Michael Connery.  Connery is a good guide to this field, being an active youth organizer himself as co-founder of Music for America in 2004 and a blogger at Future Majority, MyDD, and TechPresident.  He provides an insightful overview of the Millennial Generation (those born roughly between 1980 and 1998, though opinions differ on the years) and the contrast between the robust conservative youth machine and the fledgling progressive youth movement, showing how internet technology 2.0 and frustration with the last 8 years has fueled the growth of the progressive youth movement.  It’s a good read.

What I found especially interesting was his discussion of “a split in progressive youth organizing between those who operate out of an electoral politics framework, and those whose activism is grounded in a social justice model” (p. 128).  While electoral politics organizing has remained relatively closer to the Democratic Party and focuses on get out the vote (GOTV), social justice youth organizing seeks to engage those who are less likely to be connected to electoral politics and who believe that electoral politics is not relevant to them – often young people of color.  Connery makes the point that effective youth organizing must consider both approaches.

It brought up for me a similar split in the democratic education world, which I heard discussed most recently and eloquently at the 2008 International Democratic Education Conference by my friend Yaacov Hecht, founder of the Democratic School of Hadera and Director of the Institute for Democratic Education in Israel.  Yaacov, who has long researched democratic education around the world, said that democratic education in the United States is largely built on the 1960s model: a pure pedagogical approach based on young people “doing what they want.”  Yaacov has written extensively about the value of student-directed activity (see for example his writing on “Pluralistic Learning”), and so he would be the last person to demonize the value of young people directing their learning.  Rather, his point is that those involved with democratic education in the United States often narrow their vision to the independent/individualistic aspect of democratic education while leaving out the essential social and societal aspects.

Meanwhile, around the world, democratic education is described within a larger context of societal problems and injustice and presented as an essential part of a vision for societal change.  While young people directing their activities and finding their uniqueness, Yaacov explains, is very important in and of itself, it is important to realize that democratic education is a step towards changing society, towards building a sustainable, peaceful, just, and compassionate world.  A democratic approach to education not only helps each young person find self-actualization, but also supports the development of what Yaacov calls “social-actualization,” an awareness and compassion for other people and the betterment of society.

I understand the resistance some in the democratic education world may find to a comment such as this – that carrying an agenda of societal change cannot be reconciled with a pedagogical philosophy based on non-coercion and student-direction.  However, I do not believe there is conflict between democratic education practice and a larger vision for social justice and sustainability.  It is possible, and indeed powerful, to practice education based on self-directed learning and democratic values while also acknowledging the profound social/community significance of educational experiences that enable all young people to find their uniqueness, pursue their interests, and become productive and creative members of our society.  As Yaacov described in his keynote presentation at IDEC 2008, when all people are engaged and able to help one another find their uniqueness, the result is a world that chooses construction over destruction, that chooses sustainability over violence.

This line of thinking can also be considered in terms of a public relations/”marketing” conversation, in that our message may carry more power and have a greater chance to resonate with others if we place democratic education within a larger vision of societal change.  While many people may not immediately identify with the idea of young people having a role in directing their own education, connecting the dots between self-initiative and community/societal improvement may catch people’s attention.   (There is lots more we can talk about in terms of the “public relations” aspect of democratic education, a topic I’ve been thinking about a bunch lately).

Moreover, if you start from this broad vision then it follows that we can not be complacent if democratic education is available mainly for those who are more privileged and less so for lower income communities or communities of color.  We must work for democratic education in all its variety (variety within democratic education  – another topic we need to focus on, and one which I’ll write about here soon) for all young people, in order to best nurture the development of a more sustainable, just, and compassionate world.

I’m thinking of a few projects, of many and hopefully many more to come, that view democratic education within this larger social justice and societal change framework, namely the Givat Olga democratic school and community program started in a lower-income area of Israel by young graduates of the Institute’s democratic education degree program, Spark Program which engages racially and economically diverse middle-school age youth in community-based apprenticeships in their community, the Fertile Grounds Project that brings student-directed learning to over-age under-credited students in New York City, and John Harris Loflin’s research into democratic education and urban youth including his recent paper.

These examples, including a school and city-wide program, a program within a school, a non-profit working with young people outside of school, and research-based efforts, represent some of the variety of projects that we can work on to further this perspective on democratic education and reach out to as many young people and educators as we can.

To be clear, I believe it could be highly powerful and perhaps essential to our efforts to present democratic education within a larger vision of progress towards a more just, sustainable, productive, and compassionate world, and to work for democratic education based on that broad vision.

What do you think?

Posted in Democratic Education, Framing and Public Outreach, Sustainability, Youth Voice/Youth Rights | No Comments »

Again with the business model in education!

Friday, June 8th, 2007

When will we stop talking about young people, learning, and education in the terms used to describe the production of widgets or the development of an investment fund? Human beings, and young human beings especially, must be considered in a completely different manner from business production – unless, of course, we wish young people to become as lifeless and standardized as the widgets we produce. And perhaps that is what some officials and education leaders want to create, so that their own children (often sent to private schools or elite public schools and school districts that use more innovative methods) have less competition to become the leaders of tomorrow.

A report sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education finds that there are wide differences in standards across states, creating (according to the NY Times’s Tamar Lewin) “a patchwork of educational inequities around the country, with no common yardstick to determine whether schoolchildren are learning enough.” Certainly if we take a business model to education, then of course we need to standardize standards across states, to ensure that the product (”every student”) is at the highest possible level (”learns enough”). [You can read the entire report on the DoE website]

But human beings, including young people, are composed of a brain, heart, emotions, intellect, compassion, insight. We are NOT simply conglomerates of metals and plastics like the widgets our companies produce. Every human being and young person is unique: we have different strengths and weaknesses, we learn different things at different rates, some of us are stronger in some areas than other areas. Moreover, the exploding information age is leading to a whole new set of skills and qualities that are important to succeed and lead a fulfilling life, including creativity, independence, innovation, collaboration, and critical thinking.

It is time to end our use and abuse of the business model in education, and instead take up the more humanized framework of Educational Human Rights and that of respecting the individuality of each young person.

Using this Human Rights framework we replace standardization, competition, and authoritarianism with personalization, collaboration, and democracy. This is the present and the future of education.

Posted in Education Policy, Framing and Public Outreach, Research and Reports | No Comments »