By Tom
Imagine living exactly next door and directly downwind from a combination slaughterhouse and rendering plant. Your days and nights are plagued by the haunting cries of doomed cattle and the fetid stench of rotting roadkill.
And then one day you come home from work to find that the owner and his wife have put the place up for sale and moved to a condo on Lake Chelan.
The air clears. You can have friends over. But you’re unsettled, wondering what will move in next door.
A year passes. Then you see the real estate lady, whom you’ve gotten to know fairly well, stapling up a “Sold!” sign. You ask her who bought the place. She smiles and asks what you’re hoping for. You describe a funky, independent bookstore with a wonderful coffee shop that also sells pizza and chicken teriyaki in the evenings. And they have live jazz on the weekends.
She laughs and tells you that your new neighbors include a dry cleaner, a nail salon and a doughnut shop. Although you’re disappointed, you realize it could be, and in fact was, much worse.
This is the best way I can describe how I feel about the pending debate over the reauthorization of ESEA legislation. Now that the health care bill has been passed (or “crammed down your throat,” if that works for you) our country’s domestic agenda will likely focus on education and the president’s Blueprint for Reform.
Eight years ago, while most of us were watching reruns of planes hitting skyscrapers and wondering which country to blame and bomb, the worst law ever written was quietly signed by President Bush. No Child Left Behind has since dominated every discussion about school reform.
Now we have a new version of the federal education law to talk about. Once burned, we’re now in a position to actually focus on what it says. My advice to anyone who holds a stake in this debate is to join the fray. Get involved in the discussion. Furthermore and specifically, I think we all need to be informed, be persistent, be civil, and be realistic.
Being informed involves simply reading the bill. It’s only 41 pages, including multi-ethnic pictures of happy teachers and students apparently Racing to the Top. You’ll hear a lot of comments from a lot of experts telling you what’s in the bill, but if you read it for yourself, you’ll find that a lot of them are mistaken. And if reading 41 pages seems like an unreasonable commitment, think about the poor Tea Partiers who had to read all 800 pages of the Health Care Bill before condemning it.
After informing yourself, you’ll probably find something to like and something to despise. That’s when you need to persistently voice your opinion. There’s bound to be ample opportunities to do so. One such opportunity opens up this week. The National Board is hosting a webinar in which we can communicate directly with Education Department officials about the new bill. You need to sign up ahead of time, but last I checked, there was still room. Don’t stop there, though. Let your congressional representatives know how you feel. Persistently. Remember; the squeaky wheel got the grease, but not after the first squeak.
But be civil. Over the past six months we’ve all seen what uncivil discourse looks like. But we’re teachers, and we’re better than that. It’s entirely possible, and far preferable, to voice a strong opinion in strong terms without being a jackass.
And finally, be reasonable. If you want the perfect education bill, you’ll just have to quit your job, raise a ton of money, and work your way up through various public offices until you find yourself president of the United States. Then you get to have it your way. But of course, by then you’ll be beholden to countless constituencies, which will likely have some influence over any legislation you propose. So I guess no one really gets to have it their way. Including you. So be reasonable.
In other words, no matter how well informed you become, and no matter how persistently and civilly you present your opinion, you’ll probably never get to live next door to the wonderful coffeehouse of your dreams.
But at least it won’t be a rendering plant.
Count me among the disappointed NBCTs, along with several other bloggers all linked to this post:
http://accomplishedcaliforniateachers.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/unanswered-questions-esea/
Thanks for posting this response, Tom. It takes a lot of energy to teach and stay deeply involved in these issues, and it may be that certain people are counting on us not have the energy or resources to push back at their ideas. Let’s keep up the pressure.
Now I’m more discouraged. Thanks for the legwork, Tom.
Post webinar update:
I signed up ahead of time, like I was supposed to, and pre-read The Blueprint, like I was told to do. I dialed in and waited.
Right on time, the department official spoke up and began by telling all 250 of us that we would all be “muted.” That seemed reasonable; 251 people talking at the same time over the same phone line wouldn’t be very productive. So then she began explaining The Blueprint, and we spent the next 40 minutes hearing a summary of the 41 pages that were all supposed to have read ahead of time. That wasn’t very productive, either. After that, there was time for questions. Ten of them.
Here’s a sampling:
Q: By which criteria will states decide on the schools that are in the bottom 5%? (The Blueprint calls for those schools to enter “turnaround” mode, which could lead to closure or mass firings.)
A: That’s up to the states to decide, but they have to use data that includes achievement growth, graduation rates and the extent to which they’ve addressed the achievement gap.
Q: Why the emphasis on college readiness?
A: Even though the administration agrees that college isn’t for everyone, data shows that the skill set which leads to college readiness and success also leads to success in the trades and the military. Hence “college and career readiness.”
Q: Will there be money for professional development?
A: Yes. There’s $2.5 million set aside for PD, which is supposed to make its way down to the district level. Furthermore, The Blueprint calls for extended learning time, which could include time for teachers to collaborate.
Q: With all the emphasis on accountability, what about teachers who teach in non-tested grades and subjects.
A: Good question. These folks will be measured using state/local assessment or alternative assessments that could include student portfolios. Hmm.
Q: Will there be any changes to teacher prep programs?
A: Yes; in Duncan’s experience, new teachers, by and large, were not prepared to take on the task of teaching in Chicago Public Schools. The administration would like to see an emphasis on preparing candidates to teach in the schools where they plan to apply. (This didn’t make much sense to me; in my experience, candidates are willing to teach anywhere there’s a job.)
Q: Will there be any recognition in The Blueprint regarding National Board Certified Teachers?
A: Not really. There is an “effective teacher” designation, which implies merit pay, but NBCTs per se aren’t “effective teachers.” To reach that level, a teacher has to show evidence based on student achievement. .
That was about it. It was entirely one-way, with the teachers on the receiving end. Maybe the administration wants to hear the thoughts and ideas of actual teachers. Maybe they really do want to do reform “with us,” But this felt like reform happening “to us.”
OK, I skipped to the part I was looking for: “The goal for America’s educational system is clear: Every student should graduate from high school ready for college and a career.”
I teach math, and we do a lot with the words “and” and “or”. I was really hoping there was going to be an “or” in that sentence.
I’ll read the rest later Tom, because you give good advice. But I’m discouraged already.
I plan join. I have some questions and totally agree with Tom. Let’s listen, read and learn. Then share our educated opinions.
I love it: “And if reading 41 pages seems like an unreasonable commitment, think about the poor Tea Partiers who had to read all 800 pages of the Health Care Bill before condemning it.”
I hear many complaints about teachers not being consulted on these issues. You’re right, if we want to be heard we need to assert ourselves into the conversation rather than sit and wait for people to invite us.