Thursday, July 24, 2008

Christa McAuliffe's Death and Reagan's Reelection

Christa McAuliffe, a high school social studies teacher and mother of two, was the "first citizen passenger" scheduled to go into space. Superficially, the presence of a teacher was to signify America's high regard for teaching and schooling.

Unknown to Christa McAuliffe, however, the more basic mission was aiding President Reagan's reelection. A teacher in Challenger was the cheapest way of making the incumbent President look like a supporter of teachers and schooling even though he had set out to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and was making drastic cuts in the Federal education budget.

When the decision was made to launch a Teacher-in-Space, the Reagan-Bush re-election campaign was already underway. Reagan-Bush was known to be vulnerable to Mondale-Ferraro on several issues. One of the most important was education. Mondale effectively highlighted Reagan's "second-rate leadership" that produced "an appalling record" of “educational neglect.” His campaign issued a "report card" on Reagan educational policy that gave the President "F's" in everything but dramatics and sports.

Shortly after Mondale launched this offensive a Gallup Poll revealed that a large majority of Americans thought Mondale more likely than President Reagan to improve public schooling. This pro Mondale trend concerned Reagan campaign officials. They felt the President needed to recapture at least some of the "education vote?" To do so they planned a counter offensive. It was launched on August 27, 1984.

While speaking at a District of Columbia junior high school, the President first announced several new members of his Advisory Council on Education. That was a warm-up. Then he proudly told the world who America's first passenger in space would be. "Today" the President said" I'm directing NASA to begin a search in all of our elementary and secondary schools and choose as the first citizen passenger in the history of our space program one of America's finest — a teacher. One year later Christa McCauliffe was selected from over 11,000 applicants.

Late Night THoughts on the Death of Christa McCauliffe

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT CHILDREN LEARNING WHAT THEY LIVE

John Dewey famously argued that children learn what they live. For instance, teachers can talk at youngsters about the virtues of democracy, but if they live in a despotic school, they will learn to tolerate despotism.

This line of reasoning seems compelling, but in the real world things work more subtly. The person who taught me most about the value of freedom and democracy, for example, was my despotic forth grade teacher. Feared by all, she extorted compliance by very credible threats and actual violence.

She finally went too far, even for those antediluvian times, when she held a youngster against a very hot steam radiator until he demonstrated sufficient servility. His burns got her transferred to another school. But not before she taught me how dangerous unrestrained power really is and how precious is control over one’s own life.
A similar thing sometimes happened in the good old days of Catholic schooling when some nuns occasionally bullied, slapped or otherwise humiliated children. Presumably, what these nuns had in mind by not sparing the rod was making better Catholics. But the actual consequences were often to turn some kids off, not just with regards to Catholic schooling, but Catholicism altogether.

The point is that what we learn in school is often contrary to what the instructor or administrator intends. Imagine, for instance, a ‘free and democratic’ classroom where chaos makes learning difficult, and where vast amounts of faculty and student time are spent mediating petty disputes. Some students might come away from such an experience longing for a strong leader who would end the chaos and quickly settle petty disputes. In short, poorly managed democratic classrooms could make some kids eager for despotism.

So when it’s said that children learn what they live, keep in mind that this learning might be other than what is intended.

To examine these and similar issues further, see articles at www.newfoundations.com

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

The Difficulties of Schooling for the Future

Most of us have seen articles in popular magazines that attempt to portray the future. How accurate are these prognostications? There is little room for optimism. Writers of the 1920's and 30's trying to look fifty years into the future, for instance, predicted bigger and faster airplanes, safer and more reliable cars, people commuting via autogyros or personal jet packs, and entire cities encased in plastic bubbles within which was a man-made environment of pristine perfection.

We now are beyond that “future.” To be sure, planes are even bigger and faster than predicted, but no one is whizzing to work in their own autogyro. Car are safer and more reliable than ever, but they are often gridlocked in traffic. Cities are not encased in plastic bubbles but in envelopes of noxious man-made effluvium that eats away at both person and property.

Yes, the futurists of the 20's and 30's only got some things right when they speculated about the material future. And there are other things these futururists tended to miss altogether. They rarely anticipated the changes in race relations that have since occurred. They did not imagine the change in attitude toward the handicapped, gays, sexual behavior, the pill or opportunities for women. As a matter of fact, the people depicted in the illustrations accompanying those old time futuristic articles were all white and able-bodied with the women smiling happily in kitchens of the future.

Why did the popular writers of the 20's and 30's commonly dream of sleeker cars and more efficient kitchens but not of a more humane and compassionate America? Why was it unexceptional for them to predict faster planes but exceptional for them to visualize anything like the Voting Rights Act? Because they took much of their culture for granted. In fact it was transparent to them. That’s just the way things were.

We too are like that. We also take aspects of our culture as a given, yet many of the things we never question, perhaps never notice, will change in the future. That’s the difficulty of schooling children for the future. We can’t really imagine what that future will be like. Perhaps educators should be satisfied with preparing students for the present. That's hard enough.

To examine these issues further, see Dissecting School Benefits: a typology of conflicting goals

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Raising Adolescents: the myth of control

My wife and I watched a neighbor girl emerge into adolescence. Her parents fruitlessly tried to maintain the same level of control. When the girl did something they disapproved of, they vainly tried even harder to reassert control. When she continued to phone a boyfriend they disapproved of, for instance, they confiscated her cell phone. She secretly secured another. When they forbade her to see him, she arranged secret dates. When they urged her to study harder, she studied less. When they forbid her to drink she secretly got wasted and smoked marijuana in the bargain.  

In short, the daughter responded to their attempts at control by becoming even more disobedient and devious. The power struggle climaxed when she became pregnant to the boy — who, turned out, was abusive.  There followed a clandestine abortion that her very Catholic parents, had they known the was even pregnant, would have forbidden. That the young man was Black and she wasn't added to the turmoil. 

The struggle over control culminated in long term bitterness and estrangement between parents and their child. The costs of over-zealous parental control far exceeded the benefits for all concerned. Parents should not try to maintain the same control they did before adolescence transforms their teen. Attempts to do so are counterproductive. Measured parental advice can still be effective certainly, but not without some degree of willingness on the teen's part.

Adolescents have gained a great deal more control over their own lives than in the "god old days." Sure, kids who respect their parent(s) will generally not do things that might seriously embarrass or disappoint them. But this is something the adolescent, not the parent, chooses to do. 

Remember too, that when parents give a teen advice, it is apt to be as unrealistic as an Arab advising a rainforest dweller on how to cope with a sandstorm. And even when the advice is realistic, it is likely to be lost on many teens. As a German proverb advises, "Everyone knows good counsel except those that have need of it."


To examine these issues further, see articles at www.newfoundations.com

Friday, July 11, 2008

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION: "bullshit artist" tops the job description

Time and again the position of Secretary of Education has been filled by individuals who lack: training, experience, common sense and/or virtue. Most, however, share a common strength. They commonly are consummate bullshit artists who know little about public education but still preach a lot. 

William F. Bennett, President Reagan's Secretary of Education, is a prime example. Bennett had no formal training in education, did not attend public school and also lacked public education teaching experience. To be sure, he was, for a time, a college professor. But as someone who has been both a 7th grade teacher and a college professor, I can assure you there is minuscule similarity. 

Perhaps you are aware that the Reagan administration first set out to utterly eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. But when the quality of public schooling unexpectantly became a national concern, that plan was dropped. Still determined to cripple this Department, they quietly halved Federal aid to education. Still concerned about a possible public backlash, however, the administration needed to make it look like they still really cared.  Bennett, as Secretary of Education, a blowhard, self-styled conservative who could sell sand to dumb Arabs, was just the ticket. He blossomed into public prominence. 

This is not the place to describe Bennett's demagogic fulminations in any detail. Suffice it to say he repeatedly charged that the National Education Association was a major villain in his school decline fantasy. Let's just recount a typical Bennett move. In the November 1988 Readers Digest, Secretary Bennett wrote an article praising a particular principal who took over and 'reformed' a troubled inner-city Washington, D. C. school. On the very first day, writes Bennett, this remarkable "educational leader "assembled the student body and, "... with practiced eye, chose 20 potential troublemakers to help enforce her tough new standard of discipline." And, according to Bennett, this goon squad soon solved the school's troubles.

Can you imagine? The school is out of control and the principal's solution is to put the trouble-makers in charge! If that isn't foolish enough, then the U.S. Secretary of Education singles out this misbegotten tactic for public praise! Brilliant! 

 I'm struck by the similarity of the principal's move to Nazi concentration camp practice? Like the principal, Hitler's S.S. henchman routinely used bully-boy inmates, called "Kapos," to wield a whip hand over other inmates. Their job was to starve or work them to death then herd the survivors into gas chambers. It worked, too. At least until liberation, when the inmates took revenge.

Even someone as inexpert as a typical Secretary of Education should understand how extraordinarily stupid and immoral such a policy is. Imagine the possible abuse! Perhaps Bennett was so busy promoting his best-selling, "The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories" that he failed to recognize this. Either that, or he was simply doing his job. Namely, doling out bullshit to convince the broad masses that the Reagan administration really cared about public education when it didn't. 

Let's next consider the Obama administration. Was it any better? Well this President didn't set out to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, nor to slash Federal spending on education. He actually upped it $100 billion in order to support state school budgets. 

But, that's not the whole story. There is also the matter of Obama's Secretary of Education. Let's look at that.





 

To examine these issues further, see School Bullies

-- GKC

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Schools: What Limits Their Technological Transformation?

A recent article in the New York Times cheerily reports that in the schools of the future:
  • "students will use free Internet applications to complete their classroom assignments on school-issued laptops that also substitute for text books;"
  • "parents will use instant messaging to chat with teachers about their child's progress;"
  • "educators will track students' academic growth with sophisticated software that allows them to better tailor lessons and assignments to each youngster's achievement level."
Certainly, all of this is possible and more besides. But the realists among us recognize a fundamental limitation — the kids. They have to buy into these possibilities before technology can ever transform the process of schooling.

There is no guarantee that this buy in will happen. And this is particularly true of the schools that most urgently require transformation, the schools of our inner cities.

Here is a brief cautionary tale that makes this point. Once upon a time there was a Philadelphia inner city school that was technologically impoverished. Through some miracle several ancient classrooms were equipped with new computers. The following week, during class change, two male adolescents went into the classroom and chased one another across the desktops, trampling the computers in the process. There was no money for repairs or replacements. Thus ended all of the bulleted possibilities above.

For more detailed realistic considerations of educational issues, visit newfoundations.com

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

What Do Online Courses Portend for Teachers and Teaching?

U.S. enrollment in online virtual classes is increasing with remarkable rapidity. Right now the level of enrollment is 22 times that of 2000 and shows every sign of continuing rapid growth. And this year, for the first time ever, on line enrollment reached the one million mark.

As this transformation progresses how will it impact teachers? It might mean job loss. And it at least means dramatic job change. Today only one percent of high school courses are taught online. But the Innosite Institute, a nonprofit thinktank, projects that 50% of all high school courses might be taught online by 2019. Perhaps that figure is inflated. So let's suppose that it will only half that That still means that in just eleven years one out of four high school course will be taught on line.

Why such rapid growth? Online instruction offers many advantages. Text books can be replaced by less expensive instructional packages with features and a level of student interest that individual teachers can never hope to match. Ability grouping, not to mention mass instruction, could become a thing of the past because online instruction permits every individual student to work at their own level in the same classroom. 

Tracking student progress becomes remarkably more detailed and individualized as well as much more efficient. Plus online instruction often works for kids who are turned off by traditional schooling. But effective implementation of this instruction implies vast change for teachers. Indeed, the role of the classroom teacher may well be transformed.

Online instruction may also cause unemployment for an appreciable number of teachers. In the first place, kids can learn on their own with minimal supervision. That appeals to school boards if it means lower instructional costs. Plus much of the growth in this type of instructionoccurs in newly minted virtual charter schools. And Morgan Stanley's experts say that these type "school"s will capture an increasing share of the U.S. education market as states encourage, rather than just permit, this type of instruction.

No one can predict the future with complete accuracy. But one thing seems certain. Online education promises major changes for schools, teaching and teachers.

For more on educational matters, including straightforward considerations of often avoided topics, visit newfoundations.com.