Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Oxygen

A co-worker and I were discussing today the oft-repeated education reformer line that schools should be for students and not for adults. See Joel Klein use a version here and Michelle Rhee's iterations here, here, here, or here. It's a good line, if for nothing else than it puts traditional powers in education policy (read: teachers unions) on the defensive as if they do not consider student concerns, and it does it without even naming them.

My co-worker and I are talking about this trend, and she suggested a metaphor that might contrast the line. Whenever you board a plane, she points out, they go through a long safety ritual. "Please note your nearest exit rows" and "fasten your belt by inserting the buckle and pulling tight on the remaining cord." They also insist that, in the case of an emergency, adults secure their own oxygen masks before attending to their children. Despite the best instincts of parents, this policy actually makes some sense. There's no point in having a bunch of adults trying to help out their children first and fainting in the process. Better to secure their own safety in order to be in a position to help those who need it.

It's an extreme metaphor to be sure, but it actually makes some sense in the context to long-struggling urban education systems. They're bad, they've been bad, and they're crashing for whole segments of the population. But it isn't just the students that need help--district finance, curricula, infrastructure, technology, etc. are all suffering--and adults who try to rush in without fixing some of these problems first will just faint and flounder. They'll have no air.

I'm generally sympathetic to what Rhee is trying to do: she's going after the adults in the system who have long settled for complacency and demographics to explain why DC's public schools have been so bad. But in an effort to test the all-publicity-is-good-publicity theory, she's lobbing fireballs like this one, from last week's Time piece:
Rhee is, as a rule, far nicer to students than to most adults. In many private encounters with officials, bureaucrats and even fundraisers--who have committed millions of dollars to help her reform the schools--she doesn't smile or nod or do any of the things most people do to put others at ease. She reads her BlackBerry when people talk to her. I have seen her walk out of small meetings held for her benefit without a word of explanation. She says things most superintendents would not. "The thing that kills me about education is that it's so touchy-feely," she tells me one afternoon in her office. Then she raises her chin and does what I come to recognize as her standard imitation of people she doesn't respect. Sometimes she uses this voice to imitate teachers; other times, politicians or parents. Never students. "People say, 'Well, you know, test scores don't take into account creativity and the love of learning,'" she says with a drippy, grating voice, lowering her eyelids halfway. Then she snaps back to herself. "I'm like, 'You know what? I don't give a crap.' Don't get me wrong. Creativity is good and whatever. But if the children don't know how to read, I don't care how creative you are. You're not doing your job."

Kevin doesn't like the magazine cover's title ("How to Fix America's Schools"). But it's not just the title. The cover itself is Rhee looking stern in a classroom, dressed in black, holding a broom, suggesting she'll sweep away problems. Quotes like the one above and the cover photo--two things Rhee had complete control over--are the things that test the publicity theory. Like the plane crash metaphor,"interests of children" advocates need to be careful how much they say and do, or else they may find they're lacking air.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Chad, I like your "facemask on first" analogy. But the other problem with the "I'm for the children not the adults" line is that it perpetuates a myth that things are either good for kids or for adults. Its just not true. Its not good for kids for teachers to be overworked or underworked. Class sizes should be reasonable, etc. Most, in fact just about all of the things unions should be advocating are good for both students and teachers. To the extent that a teachers' union negotiates barriers to effective teacher evaluation, overly bureaucratic processes, or a caricature agenda of more pay for less work, they're not doing their job for their own members or for kids. We should all be careful of perpetuating myths that prevent serious analysis. That's the problem with "I'm for the kids, not the adults." It often amounts to demagogery. If you're only for one of the two, you're not for an effective school system.

AOD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AOD said...

Schools ARE for students. The focus should be on student outcomes and principals should be the people who should ensure that. There's far too much talk and excuses about money and large class size. Adults in the system don't need oxygen masks. We have to protect our children and attend to the barriers that are stopping this from happening.

Alexander Russo said...

"Folks are going to have a field day with the TIME cover picture of Rhee using (on?) a broom (Can She Save Our Schools?)."


http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2008/12/rhee-the-thing.html

Anonymous said...

I haven't made up my mind on Rhee--and the Time article didn't help. However, I am moved by her passion and the sense of immediacy that she brings to the issue of education. I believe in long-range plans. I also know that in 10 years, a 2nd grader will be graduating and our opportunity with that child will have ended.

One refreshing point that she brought to her future plans was parent programs that teach parents how to hold schools accountable for educating their children. As a parent, I appreciate an administrator who recognized the value of my point of view (remember, I am one of the adults as well), but also does not assume that the school should be teaching me how to be a better parent, rather than listening to me.

But, I'll believe that improved conditions for teachers are motivated out of concern for the best interests of children when I hear WTU (or any union) stop talking about violence against teachers without recognizing that the problem is violence, full stop. If teachers are getting hurt, students are getting hurt first, last and more.

Anonymous said...

I am quite disturbed by recent attacks in the
media, particularly last week's Op-Ed piece by
David Brooks in the New York Times, which have attacked Linda Darling-Hammond, a
true education reformer. I am neither a member of the teachers' union, nor am I a teacher-educator
connected to a university, but I am a
lifelong educator and have been a teacher, staff developer, principal and local superintendent in New York City. In each position, I have stood with my teachers and together we stood for our kids, providing them with a private school education at public school cost!

What is amazing to me, as someone with a
doctorate in education, is that reform and accountability are now synonymous
with standardized testing. Fill-in-the bubble
testing is not a reform and does not equate with either teaching OR learning. If this were the case, it would be more in evidence in the private schools to which President-Elect Obama, and other members of the ruling class, send their children.

Furthermore, if testing and accountability were true reform measures, they would most certainly be reflected in increased NAEP scores and high
school graduation rates, which have remained flat
or declined here in New York. To declare otherwise is to prove the old adage, "Figures lie and liars
figure!"

Linda Darling-Hammond knows and understands
this, as do Randi Weingarten, and most teachers, which is why they are so scary to "reformers" like
Michelle Rhee. Testing and test preparation are
easy; teaching, learning, and real accountability for them, are hard, time-consuming and expensive, just like private school education.