I've Been Conned!!

…

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

—The Who

            I suppose that I had it coming.  In the virtual world of Gmail, Facebook and Twitter, there is no shrieking siren or a flashing red light to alert folks that they’re about to fall into a pit of vipers.  Lulled into a false sense of security, I’ve settled into a daily routine of skimming quickly through my e-mail for worthy petitions, calls to action, and clicks to support worthy and benignly apolitical causes (think “kittens and puppies”).  I’m a regular at Change.org, and at the GreaterGood Network.  Looking over these two sites, I think you’ll agree that they do “kittens and puppies” feel-good work that makes life more worthwhile. Every day, I go to The Hunger Site, and click to donate a cup of rice to hungry children all over the world, and then click on the other buttons to donate books, mammograms, trees, pet food, and so on to the other causes on the websites in the GreaterGood Network.  I like participating in these sites; they offer us a chance to “click” and by doing so, participate in acts of “micro-charity”.  Most of their partners are non-profit NGOs, so it’s hard to believe that those innocent clicks might benefit causes that I don’t support.

Picture from DesktopNexus

            It was all over in an instant: a couple of clicks of the mouse, and I had the “too late—oops” reaction when I realized I’d made a truly regrettable error. The innocent subject line was something in the vein of “kittens and puppies”, and so I clicked… and confirmed that I supported “kittens and puppies”. Another window opened asking if I’d support some other worthy “kittens and puppies” cause (click), and another (click)…and another (click).  And suddenly, there it was…the wolf in sheep’s clothing, the Trojan horse of all Trojan horses: Join the Fight to Save Great Teachers,  a petition initiated by Students First, the education policy lobby run by faux education expert, Michele Rhee.  Remember her?  The mythologized Bee Eater who got results in the Washington, D.C. schools, and then quickly ducked out when her mayoral patron was evicted from office?  The role model for superintendents of urban schools everywhere, featured in “Waiting for Superman”, as she brags about firing bad teachers with her Machiavellian teacher evaluation system?  

            Here’s what Students First says they’re for which sounds a lot like “kittens and puppies” at first blush:

• Elevating the teaching profession by valuing teachers' impact on students;
• Empowering parents with real choices and real information; and
• Spending taxpayers' money wisely to get better results for students.

But Students First (SF) perpetuates a fraud on families through smoke and mirrors:

• SF narrowly defines the value of teachers’ impact on students, equating impact with large scale test scores.  It devalues the impact of teachers’ relationships with students and their families by minimizing the effects of teacher experience and the trust that families build with teachers over time. It fails to recognize the strength and local knowledge that comes from commitment of and by the school community.
• SF says that choice is good but is blind to the information on the demographic consequences of school choice. A National Education Policy Center study suggests that charters actually increase segregation of students. For many children excluded by charters through “cherry-picking” and “counseling out” there is no choice if they are to get the supports they need. And the children who are disproportionately affected by these tactics? The poor, those with disabilities, English language learners, the very children SF claims to be helping.
• SF promotes responsible use of taxpayers’ money, but ignores the shell games played by commercial charter operators to profit at public expense.  Hedge fund investors capitalizing on the “crisis in education” have joined the fray.  Public school districts lose in this tug-of-war for resources.

            Using social media like Change.org and The Petition Site.com, Students First is selling their agenda by stealth.  Their taglines are all “kittens and puppies”: “Every student deserves to attend a great school”, “Pay effective teachers what they deserve”, “Join the fight to save great teachers”, “Pass the DREAM Act to give every student a chance at the American Dream”.  They are using progressive-sounding phrases and twisting their meanings to serve their very un-progressive ends.  As we get closer to re-authorizations of ESEA (aka NCLB), and IDEA, don’t be surprised if Students First begins to claim a wellspring of support from these misleading petitions.  

Image copied from Facebook by K. Kosobud

            So, I’ve been conned.  Bamboozled.  Seduced by “kittens and puppies”. Snookered.  Fallen into the pit of vipers.  Learn from me.

            And remember, a snake may shed its old skin...but underneath it's still a snake.  (Thanks to S.F. for this bon mot).

 

Kathleen Kosobud is temporarily retired from her teaching career as a special educator while completing her Ph.D. at Michigan State University.  She blogs for the Learning Disabilities Association of Michigan at http://ldamiexchange.blogspot.com, and for her own amusement at http://backburner-nkk.blogspot.com. She has the distinction of being one of the first National Board Certified Teachers (EA/Generalist) in the U.S.

Waiting for Superman in Michigan

I know that NBC's hype of the release of "Waiting for Superman" has stirred up feelings in a large number of dissatisfied "customers" of the "education market". Since I don't believe that public schooling should be market-driven, but rather serves a common democratic good of preparing an informed citizenry, I felt the need to address some of the complaints and claims that I saw today in the SpecialEdLawMichigan listserv. These revolved around teacher preparation, teacher qualifications, and teacher quality. Notice that "teacher" loomed largest in the finger-pointing. The most publicly visible, teachers take an awful lot of unearned abuse. So here's what I posted in response to the comments, mostly about process, but a little about systems.

I served as co-chair of the Professional Standards Commission for
Teachers until I began my doctoral studies in special education. This
was nearly ten years ago, and we recommended the addition of the
"Seventh Standard" for technology. At that time, there were teachers
who still did not use computers for record-keeping, for integration of
technology into instruction, or, most importantly, to create access to
the general curriculum. As one of the members of the ad hoc team
looking at the standard, and as a special educator and parent of a child
with learning disabilities, I advised the team to be sure to include
universal design, and assistive technology as part of this standard.

Because I served on this commission, I learned a few things that I can
bring to bear on this conversation.

First, elementary teachers come out of their initial preparation with
one or two education classes in almost any content area within their
programs. This means that they have had minimal exposure to the
pedagogical (teaching skills) aspects of language arts, social studies,
science and math. So, this needs to be factored into the equation when
one considers where to focus one's energy on improving the education
system. There is only so much time that colleges can expect students to
remain dependent on loans, financial aid, and their parents.

Second, some programs have one or two courses in meeting the needs of
diverse learners, including students with special educational needs.
Others, including MSU, have integrated special education content into
every education course taught in the elementary teacher education
program. I was one of many doctoral students working with faculty at
MSU in the teacher education program over a five year period to analyze
the goals of each course and to identify the best researched practices
in special education to help instructors integrate special education
concerns into their courses. Susan Peters, Ph.D. led this initiative. We
also identified teaching resources (videos, speakers, web content) to
support their instruction. Instructors in elementary education come from
a broad range of backgrounds, and so the deliberate infusion of special
educational content is one of the ways to improve the general level of
knowledge for both faculty and students in the program. It probably
doesn't go the full distance toward "fixing the system" but it is a
promising start, since it attaches knowledge about special education to
the context in which education students will apply it.

Third, when new teachers enter the classroom, they have two years of
general college coursework (a major and a minor), and about two years of
a mixture of education coursework and additional general courses. They
also have varying amounts of experience with teaching in a classroom.
Some programs embed classroom experiences throughout their education
courses, others offer the minimum required classroom contact for student
teaching. That's what you get in a new teacher. (See my comment about
remaining dependent, above).

Fourth, teachers are trained in 4 to 5 years, and shell out tuition for
that period of time, just like many starting college-educated
professionals. Many are in debt, because they are unable to work while
they are student teaching. We also require them to continue their
learning throughout their teaching years in order to maintain their
credentials. One of the least-supported areas of learning for most
teachers is the professional development offered by their school
districts. Funding is low, and priorities may reflect the need to
bolster test scores, rather than more elusive things such as the success
of all students upon completion of their schooling. Districts are faced
with the dilemma of providing qualified substitutes so that teachers can
attend professional conferences, and in-house professional development
can range in relevance and quality from trivial to vital, depending on
the leadership (principals and central office administrators) within the
district. Many districts use data to enhance the academic skills of
their teachers but offer very little to enhance their pedagogical skills
(how to teach diverse children, e.g.)

My point is: if you are dissatisfied with the skill sets that teachers
bring to bear for children with special educational needs, make sure
that you support efforts to improve their opportunities for learning.
Within every academic workshop offered by a district, there needs to be
some support for how teachers can differentiate for diverse learners,
what the district can offer in universally designed curriculum
materials, and how to support access to the curriculum through IEP
development. This responsibility cannot fall entirely on the shoulders
of teachers.

Oh, and as a side note, I was an AP student in high school, a National
Merit Letter recipient, graduating with high distinction from UM, and
qualified as one of the first National Board Certified Teachers in the
country, certifying as an Early Adolescent Generalist while teaching in
a special education resource room, because there wasn't a certificate
for teachers in special education. Smart and talented people do go
into teaching and it is our job, I believe, to encourage them to enter
the profession, to support their continued growth and service to the
profession, and compensate them appropriately for their work.

Kathleen Kosobud, M.A., N.B.C.T., A.B.D. (all but dissertation)