I intended to humbly connect some dots between the struggles we collectively built in Rochester, New York that pushed out Jean-Claude Brizard and what is currently happening in Chicago politically. I had fortunately been prepped by allies in the Chicago Teachers Union/Caucus of Rank-and-File Educators. Through them, I learned some critical lessons about how Board meetings are conducted by the undemocratic, appointed Board of Education in Chicago. My allies informed me that if one realistically intends to speak one should get to the Board extremely early, before 7 am. I was also advised to prepare to wrestle for a chance to speak being that I’m not associated with one of the astroturf, pro-corporate education reform organizations who regularly support Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel’s political agenda. This tactic and approach to discouraging people from attending and signing up for Board meetings to speak, referred to as the Vitale Stall, clearly speaks volumes about the insidious environment I was entering. Still, I was eager to both observe and potentially engage with allies especially provided Stand for Children’s on-going misinformation campaign.

Admittedly, I arrived at the Board of Education on Clark St late, around 12:30 pm. I quickly rushed to the security sign-in desk hoping that I would still be able to get to see the remainder of the meeting. I was asked for my driver’s license by the employee at the security desk, which I produced. After said employee looked at my license and noticed I was a visitor from out of state, I was asked what I was coming for and why I was attending the meeting. I explained that I was in town and as an educator I hoped to see the Board meeting. I was then told that they “…thought the overflow room had recently emptied”. Being that I was seeing groups of folks emerge from the elevators and exit the building I stopped and asked a few if they had come from the overflow room. They said yes and informed me that they had just left that location and it was empty. The employee at the desk called over a Chicago Public Schools employee in a suit who explained that the meeting was close to being over by then so I couldn’t enter, even the overflow room.

By then I had begun raising questions in protest of being denied entry. I declared, “Look, I’d just like to observe, isn’t this an open public meeting? Don’t y’all have laws and regulations about that here in Illinois?” My resistance was brushed off and I was again reminded that the meeting was close to being over. They refused to let me into the meeting despite several folks having been let past the desk during this conversation which I also raised. Eventually I rested my case and waited for allies to come down from the meeting. I was later disappointed that I missed the exchange between Chicago Teachers Union Vice President Jesse Sharkey and folks associated with astroturf corporate ed organizations Stand for Children, Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) and Education Reform Now!

In the midst of waiting in that lobby and since this experience, I spent some time reflecting. The experience reminded me of a few critical points central to the current stage of political struggle in public education. First, there is an urgent need to build and organize public campaigns for elected representative school boards in Chicago as well as other locations with mayoral control, state-appointed school boards, or emergency financial managers. Luckily, the discontent with mayoral control and the appointed Board of Education has been gaining momentum to the point where folks are taking increased action in Chicago. Communities Organized for Democracy in Education with allies and community members have been developing a public campaign enacted through a petition drive to get a referendum question on an elected Chicago school board on the November ballot citywide.

We must acknowledge the urgent need to organize and develop elected school boards as vehicles for grassroots democracy. Having engaged in this struggle in Rochester, New York to maintain the institution of an elected school board against the threat of mayoral control, the importance of this issue can’t be underestimated. Equally, there is a need to democratize and systemically build grassroots democracy into elected school boards even after winning  the potential victory of an elected school board in Chicago (or maintaining it elsewhere, for that matter). While it’s important to take struggle one step at a time, it’s crucial to widen this understanding.

It’s certainly energizing to witness the movement towards this powerful potential shift in governance underway. With an elected school board established, at least the potential and space is opened to grassroots organizing in the social struggle to advance progressive values in education. Indeed, the struggle is far from over the moment the victory of an elected school board can be realized. After this line is crossed, the progressive community can then have more of a fighting chance in the effort to effectively organize for justice.

For those unfamiliar with why this became such a contentious issue, let’s return to the David and Goliath metaphor some of Change.org’s staff and many commentators use to describe the site’s impact.

How would you feel about King Saul if, just after sending a slingshot-armed David into battle, he turned and sold upgraded slingshots to Goliath and the rest of the Philistine army? That’s how many public education advocates had begun to feel about Change.org.

For well over a year now, many had grown increasingly outraged after watching Change.org sell premium petition and list-building services to astroturf organizations, information that’s often harvested directly from our hard work organizing to combat problems fueled by these very groups. For example, I and other volunteer organizers spent hundreds of unpaid hours on blog posts, web development, digital outreach and more to get people to sign petitions in the run-up to last summer’s Save Our Schools marches and related actions. ‘Angry’ hardly begins to describe my tired, frustrated self when I found out that StudentsFirst– whose corporate lobbyists work against pretty much everything we marched for– was allowed to buy the names and contact information of our supporters who clicked too quickly after signing ours, and then claim them as their own ‘members’ (without their informed consent).

There were also painfully ironic moments, where petition signers were tricked into taking a second action whose intent directly contradicted the action they actually set out to take. For instance, people who petitioned to reinstate a charter school teacher who was fired for helping her students plan a Trayvon Martin fundraiser were often immediately asked to click-to-sign (or “join”) StudentsFirst, which lobbies to eliminate the due process rights that could have prevented her unjust firing in the first place.

That’s why so many people signed and spread Chicago teacher Jennifer Johnson’s SignOn.org petition to Change.org last Friday. She wrote the petition out of frustration, after discovering that the Illinois office of Stand for Children had started running a paid follow-up petition on the site as part of a larger media campaign intended to disparage the Chicago Teachers Union during their intense negotiations with Chicago Public Schools.

Had they taken the time to listen to both sides of the bargaining table, Stand might have discovered that among the key issues the union is fighting for are more libraries, arts programs, in-school services and smaller classes, all of which directly benefit Chicago’s (often needy) kids.

Unfortunately, Stand has demonstrated no interest in the teachers’ side of the story. Worthwhile public services like public school libraries and arts education aren’t biggies on the ALEC agenda. Union-busting, on the other hand, is.

And let’s be clear: when you look behind their extensive (and quite expert) use of coded language, you will find that just like StudentsFirst, most of the policy proposals Stand For Children supports are lifted right out of the ALEC playbook. (Yes, that ALEC, the same corporate-funded lobbying group that gave America the deceptively named “Stand Your Ground” laws that let Trayvon Martin’s killer walk scot-free for months. You can click the links above and compare their agendas to ALEC’s archives for yourself right now. For the sake of time and space, I’ll share a side-by-side comparison in another post soon.)

In each state they infiltrate, both StudentsFirst and Stand For Children have consistently dedicated the lion’s share of their attention and vast resources to advertising, lobbying and electing public officials who will enact a very specific set of education policies, which can all be found right here among the ALEC archives. Virtually none of these policies are backed by credible research or past experience, and they are vigorously opposed by many public school stakeholders. On the flip side, virtually all of them directly enrich private corporate benefit at public expense, in particular by expanding demand for corporate products and services– particularly those related to high-stakes testing and school management companies.

In light of these facts, it’s clear that, all rhetoric aside, these two groups clearly don’t meet the criteria of Change.org’s client policy. Their policy expressly says it will not “accept sponsored campaigns from organizations that…seek private corporate benefit that undermines the common good.” Slowly, but hopefully surely, the progressive community is learning that Goliath is no less of a Goliath when he shows up to battle wearing a t-shirt that says “I heart kids,” and for the Goliaths influencing ed policy battles around the country right now, StudentsFirst and Stand For Children are that t-shirt.

So again, I applaud Change.org for looking beyond these groups’ rhetoric and examining whether the two clients really fit with their policy. As a former teacher and present education and labor advocate, I look forward to seeing how we can all work together to ensure that powerful platforms like these can become fully supportive of interrelated issues like educational justice and the rights of working people.

Over a year ago, I remember parent activists in Parents Across America discussing this issue and how folks needed to contact change.org to build pressure for….well….change. Part of the frustration was that Students First and Stand for Children’s petitions used deceptive, manipulative wording to lure in unsuspecting folks who likely would not have signed their petitions if they knew the political nature of both organizations. Being that change.org spreads a large amount of information to folks outside the usual activist choir, this seemed logical.

Fast forward to the last month. Jennifer Johnson, a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools active with the Caucus of Rank and File Educators (CORE) in the Chicago Teachers Union, collectively built a public campaign with other teachers and activists to address this issue. The following video was uploaded by Ms. Johnson and CTU allies to spread the message. I gladly spread the campaign information in solidarity, being that I was like-minded with the cause. The campaign quickly went viral (currently approaching 5,000 signatures) and the pressure was brought to bear on change.org who then announced that they were dropping Students First and Stand for Children as clients.

Before anyone could even try to reel in the enthusiasm and excitement with this small victory, Ms. Johnson intelligently sent out an email to all who signed titled, “A Win and A Warning”. In it, she reminded folks to stay grounded in reality, writing,

Though this is good news, we still need to be very realistic about Change.org and their willingness to repeatedly dupe signers into supporting petitions that appear to be progressive but are really backed by corporate and anti-labor organizations.  While this is a great step, we still don’t have a clear indication from Change.org on where they draw the line on anti-worker organizations and groups that advocate against collective bargaining

We also have a long way to go in the struggle to achieve major, broad victories in building concrete improvements in teaching and learning conditions in our schools. In addition, we must push back against those that wish to privatize said schools and reclaim educational policy as primary stakeholders in this wider critical process. If we can take anything away from this small victory with change.org it’s the sometimes-needed reminder that when dedicated folks join together in concrete action victories are possible and can be realized. With the current state of politics in public education, sometimes we all need that reminder in order to collectively roll up our sleeves and fight the very necessary fight that we engage in daily.

My 1st "summer off" included several weeks of professional development, plus self-driven planning of enriching learning experiences. Not satisfied with the institutional whitish-grey of the walls, I also painted my classroom a more inviting shade of blue.

Here’s another reality well-known to educators and their families, but invisible to those hopped up on Fox Noise News: Teachers work well beyond school hours, including during the summer.

Yesterday, a Washington Post article discussed how teachers spend the oft-envied summer vacation: by working other jobs and preparing for students and the coming school year.

But for many teachers, the vaunted “summer off” is a shrinking season. Although all the teachers interviewed at Patriot had some kind of getaway planned, they were booking around work-related obligations, such as workshops and second jobs, that fill in whole blocks in their planners.

“People always say, ‘Wow, you get the whole summer,’ ” said Theresa Carson, who teaches business at the school. “But there are literally just three weeks when I don’t have something to do related to school.”

(Note to anyone who wants to begrudge Ms. Carson her three weeks: working with youth is a rewarding, but physically draining, occupation. Having worked in both “grown-up” centered environments and kid-centered ones, I can attest to the fact that I definitely burned more calories in the latter situations! Eight hours with dozens of kids is just. plain. more. tiring. Don’t believe me? Give it a try…)

But, as with many other realities educators face in this day and age, we can’t assume that the public will just know we go through, or that we can depend on the media to fact-check each other when myths like “teaching is a part-time job” take root. We have to educate the public in order to create change.

So, in the spirit of the grade-ins and other actions designed to show the public how much work teachers do beyond school hours, I think it would be a good idea to photograph, blog, tweet and otherwise share the work you’re doing this summer.

Any ideas for a hashtag? #SchoolsStillIn? #SummerWork?

(Adam Sanchez): Many social justice educators feel that their teaching is their activism, yet at the same time teachers increasingly have less control over their curriculum. For those who believe in social justice education, is what we do inside the classroom enough?

(Bill Bigelow): I want to start by flipping the question on its head. I’ve known a lot of teachers who believe that their activism outside the classroom is sufficient. And it’s not. It’s not enough to be a good “social justice unionist,” or to participate in teacher antiwar committees or worker-community alliances. I believe that teacher activism begins in the classroom, with our commitment to our students and to the communities that we serve as educators. Our first job is to be an outstanding teacher. That said, as you point out, how well we are able to serve our students and the society as a whole is being shaped–distorted, really–by forces that are outside of what is going on in the schools themselves. As we regularly editorialize in Rethinking Schools, protecting our classrooms, protecting our craft, requires that we challenge all kinds of social priorities. As the recent struggles in Wisconsin show, the wealthy and the politicians they’ve hired are attempting to defund and deform public schools. es, we need to teach about this and equip students to understand the roots and motives of these initiatives. But we have to be out in the streets opposing all these right-wing schemes. I do think that good teaching is a kind of activism, but the space for critical teaching will become increasingly narrow unless we get active beyond our classrooms.

It’s interesting that Mr. Bigelow decided to “flip the question on its head”. We’ve all likely encountered teachers who “keep their politics and activism” outside of the confines of their classroom and the school building as a whole. I’ve also come across many relatively progressive teachers who decidedly focus their entire “activist” efforts within their classrooms. While there is value in a teacher committed to developing compelling social justice-minded teaching and learning in their room, it really can’t stop there. As Mr. Bigelow mentions in the end of his response, we must expand our activities and engagement beyond the classroom. If we are to truly resist and rewrite the script of harmful routines and norms that are dominant in public education we need to collectively dig deeper in order to bring about authentic meaningful change. Rather than an either/or perspective, this requires advancing the position that activism in the classroom and outside the classroom is urgently necessary.

This is all relatively common territory especially if you’ve read some previous thoughts. The pertinent issue remains as to how we intelligently push ourselves further into developing our own potential as not just educators but as parent leaders, students and organizers. We also must effectively persuade others to collectively do so as well. Both aspects of this looming challenge defy overtly simplistic responses and thinking. Still, one critical element of the personal transformation and the base-building that is central to this is identifying and developing roles. I often think of the elder African-American wisdom in the phrases “know your lane” and “stay in your lane” when the topic of roles come up in organizations and coalitions. Finding our particular strengths, talents, and skills that gel with others while building a collective effort is significant in moving any effort forward.

Of course, even getting to that type of consideration requires negotiating and meeting folks where they’re at in terms of their comfort level. Especially, but not exclusively, teachers frequently harbor concerns about professional consequences for getting involved in any type of critical activity, much less authentic grassroots activism. Part of the challenge in approaching this issue for ourselves and others is twofold. Locally, while engaging potential recruits we often say “We don’t advocate committing economic suicide” to those who express concerns about the potential ramifications of their public activities. This is meant to communicate how each person involved has to make decisions as to what level of risk their willing to commit to and undertake while understanding the possibilities. Meanwhile we need to understand that is unacceptable to do little, nothing, or actions that merely perpetuate conditions as they currently stand. If we intend to move towards improvement in addressing deep-seated long-standing issues in our schools we need to both shift conditions for grassroots organizing and gain more key stakeholders’ active participation as organizers. No small task, no doubt.

With that general charge in mind we should consider those who have walked this path before both in our immediate experience and beyond. Often times there are people and organizations with a wealth of experience right in front of us waiting to be explored and investigated. On the other hand, many of us are familiar with the “Just go out there, connect with people, and build relationships!” advisement style (often comes with a proverbial pat on the back) that we’ve experienced in education and, perhaps, organizing contexts. Such superficial approaches can be unproductive and potential dangerous especially when we don’t focus on intelligent development coming out of an informative history of grassroots struggle in public education that is unfolding to this day. In that spirit, going forward into the future and (hopefully the comment section!), I’d like to try to hear from those who have been able to successfully activate and politicize stakeholders such as teachers, parents, students, and family members. How were you able to do it? In what situations or conditions were you successful? What challenges did you face?

1. “Great” teacher – Lori Walton (@llynwalton)
“How can “great teacher” be used by Gates, Obama, Duncan, Rhee AND by folks with NBPTS credentials (who use their status as leverage to be heard e.g. “accomplished teachers”), AND by edu blog folks, charter and voucher folks, fans of public ed folks, pro and anti-testing folks, by PTA’s and SVC’s, and by KIDS THEMSELVES and all be talking about the same concept? A “great teacher” was something, someone, every teacher was inspired by, and aspired to be, and now it means absolutely nothing.”

2. “Student Growth” – David Cohen (@CohenD)
“Whenever you hear reformers – and too often, educators – talking about student growth, they mean improved test scores. On a test with 60 items taken once a year, a student can get a few more questions right the next year, and there you have it – Evidence of Student Growth! Glory be!

The word “growth” – especially with reference to a child – should reflect steps in a long continuum of changing attitudes, capacities, dispositions, and maturity. We should be talking about interpersonal skills and intrapersonal awareness, self-discipline, self-respect, respect for others, problem-solving skills, love of learning, appreciation for art, appreciation of the natural world, organization, drive, perseverance, morality and ethics – and, yes, growth of traditional academic skills.”

3. “Accountability” – Chalk Face, PhD (@thechalkface)
“The only version being pushed is test-based. Accountability to metrics is not the same as accountability to students.”

4. “Union” – Anonymous
“A great majority of teachers belong to teachers’ unions. These are professional organizations that bring a focus to problems shared by teachers, mostly in the classroom, that affect student success. The other side uses this term synonymously with thug as a gross misrepresentation of purpose.”

5. “APPR” – Lynn Garcia
“A process that neither measures my effectiveness or a students progress because it uses flawed data and rubrics. Students are not a product that can measured like you measure car production. They are individuals, with different strengths and backgrounds.”

6. “Human Capital” – Amy Young-Buckler
“The term “human capital” has been used over and over again in many districts when discussing how changes to central administration (which usually involve hiring more people and costing millions of dollars) will impact instruction in the schools. Usually, these changes in central administration necessitate cuts at the school level, having a negative impact on instruction. Often, the first people cut at the school level are the certified librarians, physical education teachers, and arts teachers who add so much to the instructional programs in schools.”

Learning how to become our best selves, & demonstrating that learning, was an explicit part of the culture in my classroom.

Standardized testing– especially the high-stakes variety– has earned a serious and growing backlash, and for good reason. The weight of the research evidence shows that it has not improved education, and that it undermines the kind of academic behaviors that support critical and divergent thinking. High-stakes testing has distorted the teaching and learning process, resulting in time taken away from actual instruction, cheating scandals, and more. Testing is also expensive, representing yet another way in which scarce education funds have been diverted away from student learning toward powerful private interests. And while they’re inelegant at best in performing their intended function– measuring student knowledge– they’re now being inappropriately used to close schools, evaluate (and shame) individual teachers, and more.

Clearly, this system is fraught with issues. Yet policymakers and some members of the public still argue that, despite their flaws, it’s good to have an “objective” measure of student, teacher and school performance– an argument I find completely maddening. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: standardized tests are not objective.

Just because a process somehow results in a number, does not necessarily mean that anything about that process is objective (unless you’re prepared to argue that men standing on a street corner rating passing women on a scale of one to perfect 10 are engaging in an “innovative form of female evaluation,” instead of borderline sexual harassment). At every step of the evaluation process, human beings are making subjective decisions and judgments about what constitutes mastery of a given subject area, and whether someone has demonstrated such mastery. Once again, for the cheap seats in the back: the evaluation of intelligent human behavior will always be a subjective process.

Given that, we are faced with a choice between 1) a subjective evaluation system that emphasizes the judgments of people far removed from the classroom, with dubious qualifications, scoring tests under ridiculous circumstances, or 2) a subjective evaluation system that capitalizes on the trained judgments of informed people involved with the teaching and learning being evaluated. (As a former student and teacher, I’d prefer that my merit be judged by qualified people who have actually seen what I can do, than by some random person I’ll never meet who was hired on Craigslist. So here’s at least one vote for system number two!)

In the spirit of not complaining without offering solutions, here is my overview of the characteristics of a better evaluation system. I’m speaking in terms of teacher evaluation, but note that these characteristics/this overall structure could easily be analogized to evaluating students, school leaders, and schools.

In my entirely subjective, but pretty intelligent, opinion, a sound evaluation system would emphasize:

1. Shared evaluative responsibility, among multiple constituent groups. All sorts of bad things can happen when one principal with an axe to grind (or way too much on his or her plate) holds the sole power to judge teacher performance. No one’s fate should ever rest on the singular judgment of one individual. Instead, several informed individuals should contribute meaningfully to each person’s evaluation, including instructional leaders, peer teachers, students, parents and the teacher her- or himself. Including multiple perspectives on each person’s performance has several advantages, like partially offsetting any particular individual’s bias, and empowering teachers to examine their performance through the eyes of those they work with and serve. This can help them spot systematic strengths and weaknesses (say, not attending enough to parent relationships) and improve their practice.

2. Ongoing, actionable feedback– all substantiated by concrete evidence, and embedded in real work. Evaluation should, first and foremost, be about supporting people to do their best work, not punishing them. It should also be realistic, without adding significant amounts of time or work to the evaluator or evaluatee‘s current responsibilities. Therefore, it should be an ongoing process throughout each school year, not just a once-a-year (or once-every-few-years) experience. This helps teachers improve their practice in real time, benefiting their students immediately instead of at an unknown time in the future– if at all.

Moreover, every rating should be evidence-based, especially if the information is going to be fairly used to make high-stakes decisions like dismissal or promotion. Evidence, in this case, would be things like artifacts from the classroom, videos and/or real-time observation, and true examples of student learning– their actual work, instead of problematic test scores chewed up and spit out by an opaque algorithm.

3. Multiple, varied ways for teachers to demonstrate that they’ve met their professional standards. All teachers are different, just as their students are. So they need to be supported to develop their unique strengths, which collectively help the whole school to develop their students‘ unique strengths. For example, noting that one teacher excels in using humor to engage students, while another is exceptionally adept at creating hands-on experiences for students who think concretely, not only supports school leaders to identify teachers’ different leadership capacities, but also supports those leaders and students’ families to identify which teachers will work best with specific kinds of students. (This is infinitely more helpful to those looking to make optimal classroom assignment decisions than an all-but-random numeric ranking could ever be. It’s impossible to credibly determine who is the best teacher in a building. But it is possible to determine who might be the best teacher for a specific student.)

If any of this sounds pie-in-the-sky, or like a revolutionary breakthrough, it shouldn’t. This is what many of the best schools– here and abroad– already do, and it’s one key reason why they get better results for their children. We owe it to our students, and our shared future, to marshal the resources and the public will necessary to create school systems that invest in their people instead of tests, and that support each and every person to be his or her most intelligent and talented self.

Dr. Urbanski,

Thank you for this essay.

Indeed, both teachers and students need lots more support.

As noted in your critique, there are many serious, deep-seated issues and problems, which must necessarily be adequately and appropriately addressed — if students and teachers are to be successful. As you know, many of these issues and problems are quite old. They are so numerous that it’s virtually impossible to efficiently and effectively address all of them at once. Yet, as you pointed out — “real changes are needed.” Of course, if we are to actually produce real changes — we must begin somewhere. Since teachers “are frustrated by the persistent [State and Federal Education Departments'] fixation on narrow testing that focuses far too much on memorization and guessing…” — as you know, there are those of us who believe (unequivocally) that this represents one of the most important areas in which we can and should begin to push cooperatively and collaboratively for real, fundamental change. As you’re also aware, this represents one of 8 Principles for Educational Change, around which the Community Education Task Force’s work is organized, i.e. ” Principle 6: To reform the standardized testing process so that it reflects accurate measures of appropriate knowledge gained by students, especially development of grade-level or above basic reading, writing and math skills.”

We believe that, (with regard to this issue, as well as many other important educational issues) as educators, parents, and other community members, we are faced with a basic choice of behaving like “frustrated,” helpless victims, or becoming agents of the changes that we all agree are needed. In fact, we are convinced that unless and until we do assume and take seriously the role of agency — fundamental widespread, sustainable, progressive change and improvement is not likely to occur.

Also, we believe that the important task of placing more focus “on how well students can apply what they know” represents a critically important reason why we must confront the issue of “narrow testing.” That is to say, we are crystal clear about the fact that the narrowly focused standardized-testing process, which you referenced above, is actually driving everything that occurs at the classroom level, and represents a major reason why far too many of our students are not mastering the necessary knowledge and skills (beginning with basic reading, writing and math skills — the foundation of academic/intellectual development) needed in order to “apply what they know.” This very problematic reality is exacerbated by the fact that more and more of our students are entering school lagging far behind where they should be relative to both social and academic development (right from the very start). Again, the systemic, standardized testing regiment and process does not allow for teachers and support staff to invest the necessary time and energy to help properly lay the foundation. Instead, almost from day-one, they are “off to the races” relative to getting students “ready” for the tests.

In order to be clear about the very real and devastating results of the practice outlined above, I would like to share a true story with you, which I learned about this past weekend, and which breaks my heart. The true story revolves around the RCSD’s Facilities Modernization Project. As you may have heard, over 1,000 people, mainly people of color, and mostly former RCSD students have applied to be part of a pre-apprenticeship program associated with the Project. One requirement is a High School Diploma. A relatively young mother of two children was among the applicants. She has a High School Diploma from the RCSD, but confided in the administrators of the program that she cannot read, which automatically disqualifies her — since of course she won’t be able to pass the required exams, which are developed by the State of New York — as part of the “employability” aspect of the program. We can be certain that she is not be the only applicant who will be disqualified along the way — based on inability to “apply what they [probably] know.”

With regard to “doing more to support our students and improve their readiness for learning” — we believe that one of the most important things that “the Rochester community” [parents, educators, Board members, politicians in general, and other community members] can and must do is to stop “the persistent fixation on narrow testing that focuses far too much on memorization and guessing but far too little on how well students can think and apply what they know,” which necessarily involves raising this issue with the State and Federal Education Departments, and which will necessarily require an inclusive, collaborative, and deadly serious, well coordinated, united front.

Thus, we are proposing that you, leaders of other RCSD unions, Board of Education Commissioners, and other politicians, i.e., people who operate from positions of power, establish a table, and invite parents, activists, and other community members to join you in designing and implementing a strategy to confront the issue outlined above. If people are not willing to work cooperatively and collaboratively around this critically important issue — then hopefully they have a better proposal(s). There certainly are numerous other important issues that can be taken up. However, in my humble view — doing nothing or doing more of the same is not an option — not if people are really serious about wanting change and improvement.

From my perspective, we are down to two basic choices, i.e., we can either subscribe to helpless victim-hood, or we can step into the role of change agents. Again, in my humble view, there really is no concrete or legitimate middle ground. Also, because of the severity of the crisis — I don’t believe that we have the luxury of subscribing to gradualism..

Sincerely,

Howard

Admittedly, at times I’ve fallen into the habit of using this frequently abused buzz phrase without critically thinking. The allure of identifying valuable research information, literature, and materials grounded in the need to support and sustain what works in particular situations or environments is strong. We would all like to have easy access to sound knowledge in order to improve what we do. The danger often lurks in when we either don’t have the knowledge base to critically examine what is promoted as compelling evidence or when we fail to decipher the many agendas interlocked with policies and practices that are thrust into our schools.

In the spirit of Nothing about us, without us, we need to interrogate, analyze, and evaluate what is often promoted as “best practices” for our schools. This is especially necessary when such ideas and programs are developed from realities and perspectives divorced from the conditions in our communities. In reclaiming our domain, we as immediate stakeholders in education must advance and develop effective practices and compelling models if we hope to turn the tide in this struggle for the future of public education. This sentiment speaks to the central purpose of our collective work here at Reclaiming Reform.

What criteria are used to determine “better”, other than test scores?  A better program?  Better teachers? Charter schools were originally designed to offer programs that were otherwise unavailable.  Initial charter school laws offered flexibility in school funding so that public school students would still have access to special programs without paying tuition.  While my knee-jerk, pro-union reaction has tended to be one opposed to charter schools simply because charters take public funds away from traditional public schools, I also can appreciate the theoretical need for such schools.  An elementary charter school in a nearby district, for example, offers a foreign language immersion program while a private school in this area is charging far more money than I can afford for a similar program.  Expanding opportunities for public students can be a good thing, some of the time, assuming the opportunities are truly compelling and exceptional.

However, I can’t really get excited about charter schools that offer pretty much the same type of program as a traditional school. Especially when they are using our tax dollars to fund their programs but not accepting all of the public school students, such as the English language learners and the students who need special education services. “We don’t have the resources to provide those services,” is a common refrain. Here is where I want to pull out that world’s tiniest violin (sarcastically located between my index finger and thumb) and play a sad anthem to the woes of charter school funding. When charter schools refuse to make their programs equitable and available to all neighborhood students,  the nearby traditional schools must then carry a disproportionate number of students who do need those services. Yes, it’s true that a school does need certain, specially-trained personnel to provide English language development and special education, but now the traditional school will either need to hire more of those personnel, or add those extra students to existing faculty caseloads.  Without, in most cases, refusing to serve those students with more specialized needs, by the way.  Couldn’t school districts just plan more mindfully and invest more strategically in the traditional schools they already have?

Now we have entered the Twilight Zone of circular logic regarding how charter schools are “better”.  Do they have better teachers?  I don’t know.  Do you prefer inexperienced teachers and/or those without educational training?  Anecdotal and statistical evidence suggest that charter schools tend to have a disproportionate number of new teachers and employees from agencies such as Teach for America.  I am not knocking these individuals, I was once a new teacher.  It is, however, important to note that experienced teachers have a few more tools in their kit-bags in responding to challenges and they have more practice in communicating effectively with families.  Also, it’s helpful to have some veterans in the building who can act as mentors to the newer teachers, or at least offer advice from time-to-time.  Oh, and, there is still that nagging concern that they “don’t have the resources to provide” specialized services with the faculty they are hiring in charter schools.  Why not?  Why aren’t they hiring corresponding faculty to serve all of the needs in the community? Where, exactly, is the money going?  Exploration of that sticky question would take at least as many words as this post.  Stay tuned.