Lewis Black said what I was thinking...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Back in Black - Education Crisis www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

...in a much better way than I ever could. But I have been thinking about this for a while. Because we are still near the beginning of the school year, the president, the media, and others are focusing on education. It seems like education is the newest fad again, and politicians of all stripes are tripping all over themselves and others to pay lip service to education. 

Though I'm happy with the new attention that education is getting, I hope that it doesn't fade back into the background after those who seek to exploit it as an issue find something else to focus on. With that, I can't write anything to improve upon Mr. Black, so I'll let you watch. 

School segregation is "back."

Source: Decent Schools for California
(http://www.decentschools.org/)

I heard an interesting interview on the NPR program, Here and Now (October 4th 2010) about the problem of segregation in the schools.  As we remember, legal segregation was the based on the already standard practice of the separation of the "races." It was enshrined in law due to the monumentally stupid Supreme Court decision of Plessy v. Ferguson in the late 1890s. The law now required facilities to be "separate but equal." Of course, that didn't happen that way, with minorities, especially African Americans getting the shaft having to make concessions with unequal facilities and being denied rights.

Fast forward to the famous case of Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education. The Supreme Court handed down the beginning of antidote to Plessy v. Ferguson in my parent's home state of Kansas at exactly the time they would theoretically be affected by it as they were both in high school in 1954. Segregation in the schools was now illegal, but that didn't stop some states' townships, legislatures and governors from trying to continue the practice. Eventually state sponsored segregation disappeared and desegregation became a priority. For a time.

It turns out that segregation isn't such an easy thing to fix. Bussing of students from underprivileged to the more affluent schools, minority to white, has lost its luster. (If it ever had it to begin with. Bussing was quite controversial, not just on the wealthier, white side) Plus, there are practical matters to discuss. As most children do, if you do not have a parent or a friend to take you to school, you ride some kind of bus or transit. Obviously already a challenge. Now double, triple or quadruple the time that a child is on this bus. It's not the ideal place to study. By the time you get home, you're already beat by the commute. Plus, if both of your parents work, (if you have two parents) then it's quite likely that you'll end up serving as a surrogate parent to younger siblings. That's a lot of pressure on someone who's top priority should be that of getting an education.

So, bussing isn't the answer. What is? That seems obvious. Improve local schools. I'm not ready to say that we've solved the race problem, not even close, but one thing that is clear is this: parents will be thrilled to send their children to schools that have a reputation for success and high standards. The answer is to make the formerly failing inner-city schools more attractive to everyone. When a school is able to be successful, divorced from place, then the segregation problem will not evaporate, but it will diminish to an extent that it is now only the racist hangers-on who self select.

But it's hard choices time. How do you make an inner-city or an other such failing school successful? It's not only resources, though that's important, but also about changing the cultures of these schools. Negative attitudes and a history of failure feeds upon itself. It only takes a few bad apples to poison the barrel. Disparate and non-cohesive action plans, lack of discipline, lack of parental involvement (that's a hard nut to crack) as well as many problems must be solved as a team effort. Everyone must be on board. I've heard it said that getting teachers to agree on anything is like herding cats. I'm a huge supporter of a strong central administration with buyoff from the teachers. A good administrator is able to get teachers on board and help them to understand why school policy is important.

Plus, more money to struggling schools wouldn't hurt. I'm okay with robbing from Peter to save Paul.

Our crisis moment...

My generation finally got our war, and we got our depression, but will we and our Gen Z children have it affect us the way that it did previous generations? Who will be most defined by this crisis? 

My parents were too old to be baby boomers, they're part of what's known as "The Silent Generation," the people who were the parents or Aunts and Uncles of the the Baby Boomers or Gen-Xers. My brother and I are both X-ers with him being right on the X/Boomer Line. After my generation came Y (Millennials), then Z (The Net Generation).

I want to talk about X-ers and Zs. The former because that's who I am, and the Zs because those are the kid's I'll be teaching. X-ers are what are referred to as a "baby bust" generation where the birth rate compared to the previous generation is much lower. We're supposed to be cynical, self-directed and the first truly postmodern generation. We're reflections of the Lost Generation after World War I. The Zs are similar to my generation in many ways (after all, they are our children) they are similar to my parents, sometimes referred to as a new Silent Generation, a generation that is less team oriented (boomerish) and more individualistic. That they will concentrate less on big ideas and more on what they can accomplish. Lastly, Zs are supposed to be less concerned with fitting into a group, and more into acceptance of the other.

As a student of history, I am finding many parallels with previous generations. The Lost Generation (the X-ers of the early 20th century) gave birth to the Silent Generation (the Zs of the mid-20th century.) The Lost Generation lived through a war and depression, but weren't active participants in either. Having thought about this, I realize now, that I will be teaching the 21st century's equivalent of my own parents!

But the thrust of this message gets to the heart of what defines a generation? My generation didn't really have a war, we didn't have the idealism like the Boomers. We had everything and felt like nothing. The world could end at any moment, but we felt a void. X. X, signifying nothing. And Z, the new Silent Generation. The children who will turn back to family and concentrating on getting by and getting back to basics.

Who will step up to the plate and advocate for strengthening our country, improving our schools, rebuilding our infrastructure and solving the larger problems? If history has any guide, it won't be Gen-X, and it Won't be Gen-Z, but those in-between. The youth who believe that they can do everything. But the question is, will they eventually become the same disillusioned people their parents, the Boomers are if they don't accomplish everything they think they can.

In the end, what is it better to be. Idealistic and have your hopes dashed? Or better to be realistic and silent, hoping for the best, but planning for the worst? Do we have to make a choice? I choose to be realistic and idealistic.

PPS High School Redesign/Rant

For those who don't know, Portland Public Schools have been losing students for years due to several factors. Whatever the reasons, Portland is has lost well over 20,000 students since the highs of over 80,000 students early sixties. While the population of Oregon is growing, PPS is shrinking. It is because of this that PPS has been engaged in a prolonged and sometimes contentious high school redesign. There were many ideas, but most of them involved the closing of high schools. This new one is no different, with the exception that only one school would be closing.

It's unfortunate, but PPS seems to be fighting a losing population battle. Unless more parents with families move into the city or there is a local baby boom, it's unlikely that Portland will need the use of all of the large comprehensive high school campuses. But it's difficult to close schools because everyone has input, and there are some schools that need to be closed.

But this isn't a problem that is unique to Portland. School districts across the country are flailing due mostly in the short-term to the economy, but also over the long-term due to demographic changes and structural instability and inability of governments to make the hard funding and hiring decisions.

This speaks to a broader societal problem in general. Our priorities are out of whack. We believe that we can fund everything that we want/need, but we don't want to pay for it. What I say is not controversial. What I write next may be. If we can't decide what we will cut, we must find ways of raising money, and if that means raising taxes, then so be it. If it means cutting services, then let's do that. At least we're paying for what we get. The real danger is going down the path that we are.

I'm happy that there is a new emphasis on education, but it's really hard decision time. Do we pay teachers more as Michell Rhee in Washington DC wants to? (Although studies have shown that more money past a certain point doesn't actually improve job performance or increase happiness). Do we get rid of the failing teachers? (Yes) Do we increase the amount of charter schools? (Jury's out on this)

These questions are the ones that we must decide as a society. Whatever the answer, we better figure it out soon, because we should be able to provide an education to students that is at least as good as it was when I was a student twenty years ago. Otherwise we'll continue to be a second-rate first-world country.

Thoughts on job hunting...

I am very likely going to move.

Oregon, the state where I happen to live, is a beautiful, vibrant, and pleasant place. (It also rains for weeks at a time too, which I love) However, Oregon has a dearth of teaching positions, not only for new teachers, but even experienced ones. The inability of the state to figure out funding, coupled with a sharp decrease in retirements doesn't bode well for my staying in this state. In all likelihood, when I'm hired for a teaching position, it will be outside of Oregon.

Being a native, it might seem that I'd be depressed with the prospect. Rather, this is an exciting proposition. Even though I love my native land, I am quite interested in creating new experiences outside of the Pacific Northwest. I've traveled more this year than I have in probably the previous five years combined. I flew to Washington D.C. where I was able to get an idea of what that part of the country is like, as well as driving to central Kansas to visit my extended family. Being able to see other parts of the west and reacquaint myself with the people and different outlooks on life was fun.

Teaching is a vocation, not just a job. It is my belief that wherever I end up, I will put all of my effort into it, be it a rural, suburban or urban setting. At this point, I have no preference. When I find the right position, I can then concentrate on working for the best interests of the students, no matter where they live, my new home.

Every child deserves a good teacher, and it's my desire to be that teacher. Wherever that may be.

-Darin-

Tech and Social Justice

I feel that using tech in classroom is a good idea no matter what. If you have access to it in the classroom, at least there's a little bit of access. Anything that you can get is better than what they may or may not be getting at home. It's cumulative. If access doesn't exist outside of the classroom, then it's necessary for people to work to make it not an issue.

So many of the questions in these web reflections are posited as either/or questions. For example, "Will you be doing a disservice to all of your students if you do not use technology because of access issues for a few?" Well, of course I would, but I won't keep from using technology because a few students don't have access. What I would do is to do my best to provide those students access to technology. I have some ideas. For example, our instructor for character in the curriculum has procured several video cameras and audio recorders for his class by writing grants for that technology. I could see how that would work well in for a lot of tech, like netbooks, which are relatively inexpensive.

Another idea that I borrow from my wife (who is from Taiwan) is to enlist the wealthier members of the parent population. When she was going to school, her father was routinely tapped to donate funds for school functions, supplies and other "non-essential" materials. He didn't see it as a burden, but as part of the responsibility of being wealthy. It is also a measure of pride that he could take. I don't think that's being encouraged in the way that it could be here in much of the US, and it needs to be fostered and recognized.

Educating parents and the community about what is and isn't able to be in the classroom is also key in getting donations. I think that parents and others in the community believe that the money that is spent in schools is either wasted or indulgent. When we educate these people we can get what I call "targeted donations," donations that are based on filling a need that isn't filled by basic funding. It's a part of educating not only the students, but the community at large and having them take a stake in their students' success.

Cell Phones Should and Shouldn't be Banned in the Classroom

I really want to want cell phones in class. Let me explain. I'm a huge supporter of technology. Going to school at Concordia has been a complete revelation in the amount of tech that's available in school now. I also did some observation at Grant High School where I saw that many of the classes had video projectors, laptops and other tech. But when it comes to using cell phones as a mandatory curriculum aids, I draw the line. So I agree with both sides. To a point

See, the thing is, I when it comes to tech, much of the existing technology is compatible with each other. As evidenced in the technology class, there are tons of open-source programs that are exactly the same on a PC platform as on the mac. Open Office, The GIMP, Audacity, and many others suffer from no loss of features or a different interface when you make the transition from one platform to to the other.

However, on a cell phone, the amount of differences between one cell phone maker and another are legion. An app that works on an iPhone will not work on a Palm-based cell phone or a blackberry. These are incompatible systems. My personal cell phone does a lot of cool stuff, but what about the student who has a super-basic cell phone. Will they be getting the same opportunities for education as other students? I suspect not. Also there is the problem with fee for service demands on cell phones. Texting isn't free. Getting apps isn't necessarily free. Most services on the cell phone cost something. Shall we subsidize that?

In fact, I have to agree with the author of the "pro" article when he says, "If they have a Blackberry… OK, I’ll just stop there, because the discussion on why a parent bought their child a Blackberry is so ridiculous my head may explode." Why are children being given a device that is meant for a business professional for personal use?

Now don't get me wrong, I have little trouble with laptops in the classroom. They are a tool that can be used for anything and are now almost critical. I could see how cell phones could be used as a supplement, but not as a critical tool. A question that I took away from the article is, "How would a student that doesn't have a cell phone get along in the classroom?" The answer is to beg, borrow or steal. Let's hope that the school has equipment to borrow because I'm not too excited about the first and third option.