I'm really curious to see how you lay out this plan Zach. The more I think about it the more convinced I am that it couldn't work. Education, by its very nature, is subjective and nationalism is by its nature standard.
For example, our Rochester school district (hardly the paragon of a successful school district), while rife with problems benefited from the specification of different schools. We did well at School of the Arts, while others did well at more technical schools like Edison and Wilson. Even School without Walls has real benefits.
Now obviously they all had their failings and I'm sure a great part of that can be attributed to lack of funding. But, in your proposal, is there a national standard whereby each school could pick a function? I'm not sure this works across the board. I think what is more likely to blame is that we don't pay enough taxes. The system is terribly underfunded, along with the current funds being badly miss-managed (as you point out). Is the best option to tear down the system and start over, or actually try to make the one we have work first?
I want to bring up one other thing that I would love to hear each of your takes on. Check out this article from the Toronto Star and tell me what you think. Does this represent full-circle progressivism or hard-core reversion?
Friday, February 13, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Get 'em while they're young
I agree with a lot of what you said Zach. I also agree with Ben's response. It does not seem terribly logical to give the schools over to the government when the government has shown that it can't really handle it as is. Full governmental control of the school system would also make it real easy for the government to control us (to take it in a super-cynical direction).
There was something you mentioned, Zach, in your post/book that needs some more attention. I think that a major part of the problem with public high schools today is that most kids are not anywhere near the intellectual level that they need to be when they reach high school (or middle school, or elementary school). This is brought on by underfunding, poor parenting, poor testing, etc. However, I think if we really want to fix schooling in this country we should start from the ground level, and we should keep kids in school year round. Let's make preschool mandatory, starting at age 3. Then we should keep them in the classroom all year long (with a different break structure obviously).
If we drastically improved the level of education from preschool to middle school, I think that we could potentially see a dramatic rise in the quality of American high schoolers. So many are lost before the schools even have a chance to save them. We need to get them while they are younger, and keep them in school longer.
There is so much on this issue. Ben is right: what do we do about testing? What is the national standard? Should there be a national standard? What about making more trade oriented schools for 15-18 year olds?
Honestly though, we are too big of a country to nationalize the school system, we are too big of a country to do a lot of good things that we should do (like provide healthcare for everyone).
Bottom line, I don't trust the government, not even with Obama in office.
There was something you mentioned, Zach, in your post/book that needs some more attention. I think that a major part of the problem with public high schools today is that most kids are not anywhere near the intellectual level that they need to be when they reach high school (or middle school, or elementary school). This is brought on by underfunding, poor parenting, poor testing, etc. However, I think if we really want to fix schooling in this country we should start from the ground level, and we should keep kids in school year round. Let's make preschool mandatory, starting at age 3. Then we should keep them in the classroom all year long (with a different break structure obviously).
If we drastically improved the level of education from preschool to middle school, I think that we could potentially see a dramatic rise in the quality of American high schoolers. So many are lost before the schools even have a chance to save them. We need to get them while they are younger, and keep them in school longer.
There is so much on this issue. Ben is right: what do we do about testing? What is the national standard? Should there be a national standard? What about making more trade oriented schools for 15-18 year olds?
Honestly though, we are too big of a country to nationalize the school system, we are too big of a country to do a lot of good things that we should do (like provide healthcare for everyone).
Bottom line, I don't trust the government, not even with Obama in office.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Reactive Nationalism
There is a lot to dig into to there. I guess my question is what would nationalizing the school system entail? I assume that it would mean a specific budget for all school systems that is funded by the federal government. My concern is that, given the nature of bureaucracy, we would still have a disproportionate amount going to the "have"-districts. I mean would the community be responsible up to a certain point, and then the government would make-up the difference if a difference existed?
Here is my other fear regarding nationalization: is there a single national standard that we are holding everyone to? It's not that I don't think there should be a certain standard that we expect everyone to attain, but how do figure out what that standard is? It seems to me that one of the central flaws in No Child Left Behind is that no one knows how to measure what level of comprehension and achievement a student has reached.
I guess my main concern (and this is very conservative/libertarian of me) is that until the government can demonstrate that it can effectively gauge problems and enact policy on a national level, I'm not sure I trust them to take control of our school systems. You know better then anyone how much faith I have in our current president. But what happens in eight years when a less-competent democrat, or (god-forbid) another republican takes office and sees how much a national school system is costing? The problem with nationalization is that it is inherently reactive. We need to come up with a system that is not effected by whims of changing sentiment, yet is still able to be affected by changing eras.
My feeling is that nationalized school systems would be in danger of being impacted by "SUV Syndrome" (whereby gas prices go up and we say "no more gus-guzzlers!" and gas-prices go down and we forget all of our previous resolution). If there was any sign of improvement, or even any sign of failure we would take the opportunity to say either "look we did it!" or "this isn't working!" and scrap the whole thing.
But I'm going to let you flesh out exactly what nationalization would entail. I want to address something different that I feel like might be relatively simple and could make a big difference on an economic level as well as on a student's individual success. I feel like our (and by "our" I mean American) society puts to much emphasis on university after high school to such an extent that when you are in high school it feels like the only option that can lead to successful life. As we all know this utterly wrong-headed. What I would like to see emphasised more is trade-schools. In Quebec, for instance the system is quite different then what we grew up with. You attend the equivalent of grades 9,10, and 11. What happens next is you attend CEGEP. I won't spell it out because who wants to speak french anyways, but the idea is that you get basic learning in high school, and you then attend a two-or-three year program that is either University prep or a trade.
Thus there is an emphasis on the idea that University is not the only answer. Now, ironically if University was as inexpensive in the U.S. as it is here this would be less of a problem. But there is a critical distinction in Canada between a University and a College. A College sets you up for a profession, University is meant to be broader in scope (and in my case ENTIRELY failed to set me up for a profession).
I think because we are such a large country population-wise we can't use other western countries as an example. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to fund university enough to make it available to everyone, so I think we need to open-up more alternatives that could lead to a successful and important life.
There is no doubt that our education system is a hopeless quagmire. I guess what I would ask you is: Is nationalization what you think ideally SHOULD happen? or is it something you think really COULD happen? Because if we're living in an ideal world there are a bunch of things I think SHOULD be a hell of a lot better, that have no chance of happening in our current system. Unfortunately, I think that is a less interesting question. If you have a vision of how this COULD happen, I'm all ears because it is probably the right thing to do.
Finally, if anyone wants proof of why this is such an important debate see this post of kyles from last week and zach's response.
Here is my other fear regarding nationalization: is there a single national standard that we are holding everyone to? It's not that I don't think there should be a certain standard that we expect everyone to attain, but how do figure out what that standard is? It seems to me that one of the central flaws in No Child Left Behind is that no one knows how to measure what level of comprehension and achievement a student has reached.
I guess my main concern (and this is very conservative/libertarian of me) is that until the government can demonstrate that it can effectively gauge problems and enact policy on a national level, I'm not sure I trust them to take control of our school systems. You know better then anyone how much faith I have in our current president. But what happens in eight years when a less-competent democrat, or (god-forbid) another republican takes office and sees how much a national school system is costing? The problem with nationalization is that it is inherently reactive. We need to come up with a system that is not effected by whims of changing sentiment, yet is still able to be affected by changing eras.
My feeling is that nationalized school systems would be in danger of being impacted by "SUV Syndrome" (whereby gas prices go up and we say "no more gus-guzzlers!" and gas-prices go down and we forget all of our previous resolution). If there was any sign of improvement, or even any sign of failure we would take the opportunity to say either "look we did it!" or "this isn't working!" and scrap the whole thing.
But I'm going to let you flesh out exactly what nationalization would entail. I want to address something different that I feel like might be relatively simple and could make a big difference on an economic level as well as on a student's individual success. I feel like our (and by "our" I mean American) society puts to much emphasis on university after high school to such an extent that when you are in high school it feels like the only option that can lead to successful life. As we all know this utterly wrong-headed. What I would like to see emphasised more is trade-schools. In Quebec, for instance the system is quite different then what we grew up with. You attend the equivalent of grades 9,10, and 11. What happens next is you attend CEGEP. I won't spell it out because who wants to speak french anyways, but the idea is that you get basic learning in high school, and you then attend a two-or-three year program that is either University prep or a trade.
Thus there is an emphasis on the idea that University is not the only answer. Now, ironically if University was as inexpensive in the U.S. as it is here this would be less of a problem. But there is a critical distinction in Canada between a University and a College. A College sets you up for a profession, University is meant to be broader in scope (and in my case ENTIRELY failed to set me up for a profession).
I think because we are such a large country population-wise we can't use other western countries as an example. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to fund university enough to make it available to everyone, so I think we need to open-up more alternatives that could lead to a successful and important life.
There is no doubt that our education system is a hopeless quagmire. I guess what I would ask you is: Is nationalization what you think ideally SHOULD happen? or is it something you think really COULD happen? Because if we're living in an ideal world there are a bunch of things I think SHOULD be a hell of a lot better, that have no chance of happening in our current system. Unfortunately, I think that is a less interesting question. If you have a vision of how this COULD happen, I'm all ears because it is probably the right thing to do.
Finally, if anyone wants proof of why this is such an important debate see this post of kyles from last week and zach's response.
Monday, February 9, 2009
A National School System?
I literally do not know where to begin talking about this issue. It is so complex, so very dear to my heart, and so thoroughly disheartening that it is almost too difficult and painful to write about. However, we've got to start somewhere. This is a conversation that simply has to happen. You could read this entire post, or just read the lyrics to this Dead Prez song, because it will save you sometime and say most of what I'm going to say in a much catchier, rhymier way.
So, a little background. Nine years ago, morons assumed control of our country. Too young to move to Canada and too lazy to climb up a bridge from which I might throw myself, I stayed put. I could outlast these guys, I thought, and it gave me some small relief that, though I was sure of nothing else, I most certainly had an I.Q. perhaps double that of the leader of the free world. And that's not even being cocky--it's a statement on Bush. I mean, people want to talk about Obama's election meaning that every child can now dream of being President. But I'm pretty sure that Bush's election opened way more doors: he made it possible for very stupid people to dream of being President one day, and stupid people in this country outnumber every single racial group. I know, because a majority of every racial group fits into the stupid category. Of course, if you are reading this, you are one of the smart people, and so ought not to be offended by my comments about your neighbors and extended family. They can be smart too--just point them to the blog.
But, I digress. Now that I have alienated half of our readership (in other words, the possibly three people who are reading this blog who are not also writing it) let me get back to the story: nine years ago, morons took over the country. Most people, after a few days of grumbling, seemed quite alright with this. I mean, I have to assume they were fine with it, because they didn't take to the streets. They didn't march or sing. I mean, I get it: Al Gore isn't exactly the kind of guy you want to risk life and limb for. But it wasn't about Gore, it was about the principle of the thing.
I bring all this up because I believed then, as I do now, that education could have and should have been the thing to save us. How? Because maybe if there were a few more people in this country capable of reading the Constitution, they could have dusted off their copy and read a few of the passages out loud to the Supreme court. Because maybe if there were a few more people in this country capable of complex mathematical functions, like counting and re-counting, we could have put an end to this ourselves, without the court's intervention. Because maybe if there were a few more people familiar with the lessons of history, the discussion about the purpose of the Electoral College could have lasted longer than a week and possibly amounted to something.
Of course, more than anything else, it would have been nice to have a country full of people who knew enough about history, politics, sociology and economics to know that this man, this George W. Bush, was not the type of dude we wanted to elect President. But elect him we did. And he must have sensed our stupidity in doing so, because his greatest, most memorable piece of domestic policy--perhaps his ONLY memorable piece of domestic policy besides the Patriot Act, and I have a hard time considering knee-jerk reactions to imaginary threats as policy--was No Child Left Behind. That's right: No Child Left Behind. I'm sure you've heard some version of this joke before, but I am going to make it and claim it as my own: No Child Left Behind is the perfect name, because no one can be left behind if the whole group doesn't go anywhere.
Now, let me be very clear: what I am about to say applies mainly to inner city urban education. No one in this country is complaining about the performance of private schools. And very few people seem to be clamoring for a higher level of education in upper-middle-class and wealthy suburbs. But in cities, and in rural areas, both of which are struggling on so many levels right now, there are many legitimate complaints to be lodged. And I don't mean the usual hey, our kids are getting a lower quality of education and there is something inherently and maliciously racist and classist about the whole situation. No, no--I mean, that is one of my absolute favorite rants. But it's not even where I'm going with this one.
A little flavor of where I am coming from: I teach at a pretty infamous big high school in the Bronx. My particular school is named after a teacher who was murdered by one of his students several years ago, around the time we were in high school. Nice legacy, and I wish the violence that is tangential to my life ended there, but it doesn't. In September of this school year, one of our students was arrested and convicted in the shooting death of a teenage girl. He was charged as an adult and is serving life. Two weeks ago, a student at another school inside the building was killed--both shot and stabbed multiple times. Luckily neither of these incidents took place at the school itself, but that's little to be thankful for. If that's not enough flavor for you, there are something like 20 pregnant female students. Of course, some of them have delivered. (Fortunately, many of them can come back to school, because they just leave their baby in the free day care on the fourth floor...of course, that's another issue. My main point here is that there are so many girls, and guys, foolish enough to make babies while they are still babies themselves).
Of course, because of the school's history and the neighborhood, students are scanned through metal detectors every day, humiliated and violated before they've even gotten their free breakfast. All this, in a hulking cement structure that has been updated--you guessed it--almost not at all since it's original construction in 1939. 1939! The radiators (yeah, radiators) in my classroom are sometimes too loud to teach over, internet connections are still being installed, cables run freely from the roof down to windows on the outside of the building, and I'm pretty sure the original asbestos is still in the basement, where I teach three of my classes. Classes routinely exceed the legal limit of 34 in general education. But no big deal.
108 students took the U.S. History Regents (standardized state) exam this January. 10 of them passed. Not 10 percent. 10. Of the 140 or so who took Global History, about 20 passed. In English, roughly a third of students passed the 11th grade state exam. This, despite the fact that I consider my colleagues on the whole a bright, talented, industrious group of people who are more than capable as teachers. Of course, as abysmal as this may sound to you, we actually compare favorably to many other schools with similar populations. In fact, under the city's School Report Card system, intended to measure a school's achievements and progress, we earned an "A." Of course, 85% of the city's schools earned an A or a B this year. And yet, barely 60% of the city's students graduate high school in four years. Hmm...
So, all that stuff I just mentioned...that stuff was the norm before the financial crisis the nation now faces. It's only recently started to get really interesting. Of course, we've lost money this year. Our budget has been reduced after the fact. Roughly 9 percent of our budget has already been taken. If there was anything left, they'd take that too, but there isn't: we can't even afford to offer evening or weekend classes anymore. Many students will not graduate on time without this safety net. But we can't stop it. The city literally comes in the night, via the computer, and removes money. Sometimes it's money that's not even there. The financial secretary shows up in the morning and logs on to find accounts in the red. Next year, the cut is looking something more like 18-20%, although I guess I could always keep my fingers crossed that: a) Congress passes any kind of stimulus bill, and in said bill, the Federal government maintains current levels of funding for schools; b) New York State passes on the money we need and doesn't cut from school funding when it balances the budget; c) the state legislature passes a budget on time; and d) the city spends its money on teachers and textbooks instead of more standardized testing. I mean, let's be real--I would pretty much crap my pants if any ONE of those things happened. But I think we all know that NONE of them are going to.
How did I get to be so jaded, you ask? It certainly isn't the waste I've seen go on around me. It couldn't be, for example: the Acuity exams, where the city paid a textbook company something like $20 million to develop and grade predictive assessments in math and English. I was forced, on less than two day's notice, to administer this exam to my students. Of course, my administration couldn't give me more notice, because that was all they got. So I administered the exam, to the chagrin of my students, who lost two periods they could have spent learning to a test that basically reinforced the feeling of stupidity and inferiority society has given them. But, you're saying, at least you had some valuable data you could use to better teach the kids, right? Wrong. The test results never came back. Not to the school, not to the kids, not to me. This is the second year this has happened. Where is the money going? Not only that, but the exams are supposed to be a predictor of how students will do on the state Regents exam...so why don't they look like the Regents exam? Why are they much, much harder than the state exam itself? Why is it that I, with my 99th percentile scores on the verbal portions of the SAT and ACT, and with my Bachelor's degree in Creative Writing, didn't understand the questions being asked about the reading passages? It must be me. It must be the kids. It can't be the test. It can't be the politicians who are using public money for pay for it, and then never hand back the results. (Apparently, we're doing great...you can read our Chancellor's positive review of his own job here).
Anyway, where the hell am I going with this, you ask? Isn't all of this nothing but a purely masturbatory bitch session by a teacher who just needs a stiff drink and a career change? No. It's not. While I find it difficult at times to hide my ire at the state of things, it is, in fact, a plea for help. I hope that these anecdotes, colored as they may be with my own personal experience, are understood by readers as not just plausible, but extremely commonplace in New York City public schools.
But still, you ask, what the hell are you getting at?
I'm getting at this:
Now is the time defy all conventional wisdom. Now is the time to ignore pundits and advisors and reelection campaigns. Now is the time for our public officials to say that in this time of financial crisis, not only are we not going to cut school funding, but we're going to increase it. How? By spending a fraction of the money we are currently spending to kill people in far away lands on teachers and textbooks and technology for our kids.
Now is the time to recognize that the kind of ignorance and apathy that is currently devouring the voting public is, in fact, the result of systemic oppression of the people by underfunding the public school system. It's time to make sure that we never raise another generation of kids who could vote for a leader devoid of leadership qualities, including intelligence. It's time to ensure that enough of our kids know about Adam Smith and J.M. Keynes that they could look at the stimulus bill and want to bitch-slap Congress because they know the thing is way too small, not too big the way Republicans are claiming.
Now is the time to invest in the next generation of Americans, because sooner than we would like to think, they will be running the country and taking care of us. And we need them to know enough about philosophy and history and math and science and literature to be able to get the right jobs, elect the right people, spend their money in the right places, and gain and assert the kind of influence on our culture and social progress that the Baby Boomers have enjoyed for the last several decades.
Now is the time to reinstate programs that have been cut, like music and art and theater and creative writing--programs considered "non-essential." We need these programs as much as anything else, because these are the things--like sports, which somehow manage to continue to be funded--that keep kids interested, that keep kids motivated to learn, and that give students a vehicle for self-expression and social engagement that they otherwise lack. We need to not just avoid a budget cut this year: we need to do the impossible, and see a budget increase. Our kids need it, and we need it, because soon, we'll need them. And at the moment, we don't seem to be turning out a lot of Barack Obamas.
But even all of that, were it to happen, would not be enough. I am pretty sure that to this point, Ben and Kyle will agree with most of what I have said, so now it's time to get a little less conventional.
It isn't just schools that need money: entire communities need money. I am reading a textbook right now on the history of education in the United States, and while we're only two weeks into my class on the historical foundations of U.S. Education, one theme has emerged already that I imagine is going to stick around, and it's this that I would like to hear Ben and Kyle's thoughts on the following statements, (and I apologize to you conservatives in advance for advancing my radical socialist agenda and hating on America and all that with my third point):
1) A school's success or failure can never be separated from its context. Until we repair the political economy and social ideology of the communities in which failing schools persist, we will never fix the schools themselves.
2) Jefferson believed that nothing was as important to a functioning, vital democracy as a functioning, vital public education system. I happen to agree, and I also think there is no small correlation between the state of our union and the state of our public schools.
3) Because statements 1 and 2 are true, and because I see no other way to fund the programs I spoke about above, we need to re-envision our philosophy of schools and their purpose.
There's one obvious answer to our problems: NATIONALIZE the public school system.
Thoughts?
So, a little background. Nine years ago, morons assumed control of our country. Too young to move to Canada and too lazy to climb up a bridge from which I might throw myself, I stayed put. I could outlast these guys, I thought, and it gave me some small relief that, though I was sure of nothing else, I most certainly had an I.Q. perhaps double that of the leader of the free world. And that's not even being cocky--it's a statement on Bush. I mean, people want to talk about Obama's election meaning that every child can now dream of being President. But I'm pretty sure that Bush's election opened way more doors: he made it possible for very stupid people to dream of being President one day, and stupid people in this country outnumber every single racial group. I know, because a majority of every racial group fits into the stupid category. Of course, if you are reading this, you are one of the smart people, and so ought not to be offended by my comments about your neighbors and extended family. They can be smart too--just point them to the blog.
But, I digress. Now that I have alienated half of our readership (in other words, the possibly three people who are reading this blog who are not also writing it) let me get back to the story: nine years ago, morons took over the country. Most people, after a few days of grumbling, seemed quite alright with this. I mean, I have to assume they were fine with it, because they didn't take to the streets. They didn't march or sing. I mean, I get it: Al Gore isn't exactly the kind of guy you want to risk life and limb for. But it wasn't about Gore, it was about the principle of the thing.
I bring all this up because I believed then, as I do now, that education could have and should have been the thing to save us. How? Because maybe if there were a few more people in this country capable of reading the Constitution, they could have dusted off their copy and read a few of the passages out loud to the Supreme court. Because maybe if there were a few more people in this country capable of complex mathematical functions, like counting and re-counting, we could have put an end to this ourselves, without the court's intervention. Because maybe if there were a few more people familiar with the lessons of history, the discussion about the purpose of the Electoral College could have lasted longer than a week and possibly amounted to something.
Of course, more than anything else, it would have been nice to have a country full of people who knew enough about history, politics, sociology and economics to know that this man, this George W. Bush, was not the type of dude we wanted to elect President. But elect him we did. And he must have sensed our stupidity in doing so, because his greatest, most memorable piece of domestic policy--perhaps his ONLY memorable piece of domestic policy besides the Patriot Act, and I have a hard time considering knee-jerk reactions to imaginary threats as policy--was No Child Left Behind. That's right: No Child Left Behind. I'm sure you've heard some version of this joke before, but I am going to make it and claim it as my own: No Child Left Behind is the perfect name, because no one can be left behind if the whole group doesn't go anywhere.
Now, let me be very clear: what I am about to say applies mainly to inner city urban education. No one in this country is complaining about the performance of private schools. And very few people seem to be clamoring for a higher level of education in upper-middle-class and wealthy suburbs. But in cities, and in rural areas, both of which are struggling on so many levels right now, there are many legitimate complaints to be lodged. And I don't mean the usual hey, our kids are getting a lower quality of education and there is something inherently and maliciously racist and classist about the whole situation. No, no--I mean, that is one of my absolute favorite rants. But it's not even where I'm going with this one.
A little flavor of where I am coming from: I teach at a pretty infamous big high school in the Bronx. My particular school is named after a teacher who was murdered by one of his students several years ago, around the time we were in high school. Nice legacy, and I wish the violence that is tangential to my life ended there, but it doesn't. In September of this school year, one of our students was arrested and convicted in the shooting death of a teenage girl. He was charged as an adult and is serving life. Two weeks ago, a student at another school inside the building was killed--both shot and stabbed multiple times. Luckily neither of these incidents took place at the school itself, but that's little to be thankful for. If that's not enough flavor for you, there are something like 20 pregnant female students. Of course, some of them have delivered. (Fortunately, many of them can come back to school, because they just leave their baby in the free day care on the fourth floor...of course, that's another issue. My main point here is that there are so many girls, and guys, foolish enough to make babies while they are still babies themselves).
Of course, because of the school's history and the neighborhood, students are scanned through metal detectors every day, humiliated and violated before they've even gotten their free breakfast. All this, in a hulking cement structure that has been updated--you guessed it--almost not at all since it's original construction in 1939. 1939! The radiators (yeah, radiators) in my classroom are sometimes too loud to teach over, internet connections are still being installed, cables run freely from the roof down to windows on the outside of the building, and I'm pretty sure the original asbestos is still in the basement, where I teach three of my classes. Classes routinely exceed the legal limit of 34 in general education. But no big deal.
108 students took the U.S. History Regents (standardized state) exam this January. 10 of them passed. Not 10 percent. 10. Of the 140 or so who took Global History, about 20 passed. In English, roughly a third of students passed the 11th grade state exam. This, despite the fact that I consider my colleagues on the whole a bright, talented, industrious group of people who are more than capable as teachers. Of course, as abysmal as this may sound to you, we actually compare favorably to many other schools with similar populations. In fact, under the city's School Report Card system, intended to measure a school's achievements and progress, we earned an "A." Of course, 85% of the city's schools earned an A or a B this year. And yet, barely 60% of the city's students graduate high school in four years. Hmm...
So, all that stuff I just mentioned...that stuff was the norm before the financial crisis the nation now faces. It's only recently started to get really interesting. Of course, we've lost money this year. Our budget has been reduced after the fact. Roughly 9 percent of our budget has already been taken. If there was anything left, they'd take that too, but there isn't: we can't even afford to offer evening or weekend classes anymore. Many students will not graduate on time without this safety net. But we can't stop it. The city literally comes in the night, via the computer, and removes money. Sometimes it's money that's not even there. The financial secretary shows up in the morning and logs on to find accounts in the red. Next year, the cut is looking something more like 18-20%, although I guess I could always keep my fingers crossed that: a) Congress passes any kind of stimulus bill, and in said bill, the Federal government maintains current levels of funding for schools; b) New York State passes on the money we need and doesn't cut from school funding when it balances the budget; c) the state legislature passes a budget on time; and d) the city spends its money on teachers and textbooks instead of more standardized testing. I mean, let's be real--I would pretty much crap my pants if any ONE of those things happened. But I think we all know that NONE of them are going to.
How did I get to be so jaded, you ask? It certainly isn't the waste I've seen go on around me. It couldn't be, for example: the Acuity exams, where the city paid a textbook company something like $20 million to develop and grade predictive assessments in math and English. I was forced, on less than two day's notice, to administer this exam to my students. Of course, my administration couldn't give me more notice, because that was all they got. So I administered the exam, to the chagrin of my students, who lost two periods they could have spent learning to a test that basically reinforced the feeling of stupidity and inferiority society has given them. But, you're saying, at least you had some valuable data you could use to better teach the kids, right? Wrong. The test results never came back. Not to the school, not to the kids, not to me. This is the second year this has happened. Where is the money going? Not only that, but the exams are supposed to be a predictor of how students will do on the state Regents exam...so why don't they look like the Regents exam? Why are they much, much harder than the state exam itself? Why is it that I, with my 99th percentile scores on the verbal portions of the SAT and ACT, and with my Bachelor's degree in Creative Writing, didn't understand the questions being asked about the reading passages? It must be me. It must be the kids. It can't be the test. It can't be the politicians who are using public money for pay for it, and then never hand back the results. (Apparently, we're doing great...you can read our Chancellor's positive review of his own job here).
Anyway, where the hell am I going with this, you ask? Isn't all of this nothing but a purely masturbatory bitch session by a teacher who just needs a stiff drink and a career change? No. It's not. While I find it difficult at times to hide my ire at the state of things, it is, in fact, a plea for help. I hope that these anecdotes, colored as they may be with my own personal experience, are understood by readers as not just plausible, but extremely commonplace in New York City public schools.
But still, you ask, what the hell are you getting at?
I'm getting at this:
Now is the time defy all conventional wisdom. Now is the time to ignore pundits and advisors and reelection campaigns. Now is the time for our public officials to say that in this time of financial crisis, not only are we not going to cut school funding, but we're going to increase it. How? By spending a fraction of the money we are currently spending to kill people in far away lands on teachers and textbooks and technology for our kids.
Now is the time to recognize that the kind of ignorance and apathy that is currently devouring the voting public is, in fact, the result of systemic oppression of the people by underfunding the public school system. It's time to make sure that we never raise another generation of kids who could vote for a leader devoid of leadership qualities, including intelligence. It's time to ensure that enough of our kids know about Adam Smith and J.M. Keynes that they could look at the stimulus bill and want to bitch-slap Congress because they know the thing is way too small, not too big the way Republicans are claiming.
Now is the time to invest in the next generation of Americans, because sooner than we would like to think, they will be running the country and taking care of us. And we need them to know enough about philosophy and history and math and science and literature to be able to get the right jobs, elect the right people, spend their money in the right places, and gain and assert the kind of influence on our culture and social progress that the Baby Boomers have enjoyed for the last several decades.
Now is the time to reinstate programs that have been cut, like music and art and theater and creative writing--programs considered "non-essential." We need these programs as much as anything else, because these are the things--like sports, which somehow manage to continue to be funded--that keep kids interested, that keep kids motivated to learn, and that give students a vehicle for self-expression and social engagement that they otherwise lack. We need to not just avoid a budget cut this year: we need to do the impossible, and see a budget increase. Our kids need it, and we need it, because soon, we'll need them. And at the moment, we don't seem to be turning out a lot of Barack Obamas.
But even all of that, were it to happen, would not be enough. I am pretty sure that to this point, Ben and Kyle will agree with most of what I have said, so now it's time to get a little less conventional.
It isn't just schools that need money: entire communities need money. I am reading a textbook right now on the history of education in the United States, and while we're only two weeks into my class on the historical foundations of U.S. Education, one theme has emerged already that I imagine is going to stick around, and it's this that I would like to hear Ben and Kyle's thoughts on the following statements, (and I apologize to you conservatives in advance for advancing my radical socialist agenda and hating on America and all that with my third point):
1) A school's success or failure can never be separated from its context. Until we repair the political economy and social ideology of the communities in which failing schools persist, we will never fix the schools themselves.
2) Jefferson believed that nothing was as important to a functioning, vital democracy as a functioning, vital public education system. I happen to agree, and I also think there is no small correlation between the state of our union and the state of our public schools.
3) Because statements 1 and 2 are true, and because I see no other way to fund the programs I spoke about above, we need to re-envision our philosophy of schools and their purpose.
There's one obvious answer to our problems: NATIONALIZE the public school system.
Thoughts?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
RE:Read a book
Zach the brilliant anchor you refer to is Tony Harris, and he used to work for Entertainment tonight so don't hate. Also don't be so hard on Anderson Cooper. He has the misfortune of working for CNN but he comes closer then most news anchors to attempting to report the news. I think its safe to say Tom Brokaw jumped the shark several years ago. At this point I'd rather have Anderson Cooper reporting something then Tom Brokaw scolding me for going over my time limit. Just to be clear sarcastic about Tony Harris, serious about Anderson Cooper.
OK, "Read a Book". This is a classic example of something that gets so blown out of proportion you remember it as funnier and more subversive then it was. I thought it was funny, I didn't think it was brilliant but by the time I was done watching the CNN segment I wanted to give the creators Pulitzer. It was awesome watching Tony Harris get flustered when they asked him if his kids watched BET. Why did the guy on the right sound like Darth Vader? He was a douche too. I think you could argue that an eight year old might not "get" satire but a 12 year old definitely could; "Stop insulting my kids!" That said the video itself was just funny, not life-altering. I love me some mainstream media overreaction.
Anyway, I think moving on to a non-sports topic is a good idea. We need to demonstrate that we can talk about a VARIETY of topics with very little authority.
OK, "Read a Book". This is a classic example of something that gets so blown out of proportion you remember it as funnier and more subversive then it was. I thought it was funny, I didn't think it was brilliant but by the time I was done watching the CNN segment I wanted to give the creators Pulitzer. It was awesome watching Tony Harris get flustered when they asked him if his kids watched BET. Why did the guy on the right sound like Darth Vader? He was a douche too. I think you could argue that an eight year old might not "get" satire but a 12 year old definitely could; "Stop insulting my kids!" That said the video itself was just funny, not life-altering. I love me some mainstream media overreaction.
Anyway, I think moving on to a non-sports topic is a good idea. We need to demonstrate that we can talk about a VARIETY of topics with very little authority.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)