"Education Improvement" Not "Education Reform"

Reform: n. a removal or correction of an abuse, a wrong, or errors.

Improvement: n. the act or process of making something better.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary has has several definitions for "reform" and "improvement," however, these two definitions embody the current divergent views of educational change in the United States. Language is important. How an argument is framed often reveals important subtext and nuance. For the past 20 years, politicians, the mainstream media, and many self-proclaimed educational spokespeople or "educational celebrities" (i.e. Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan, Joel Klein, Wendy Kopp, Geoffrey Canada, Paul Vallas, Kaya Henderson) have been labeling their visions of educational change as "education reform." In fact, if others argue against their "education reforms," they are labeled as supporting the status quo or the interests of adults over students. Of course, this is an artful dodge. Yet, language matters, and those who stand for public education and sustainable change are loosing the public relations war (although the recent PDK/Gallup education poll shows the public opinion is starting to turn). 

I am proposing those who believe in meaningful educational change need to craft the argument in terms of "improvement," rather than "reform." Reform for reform's sake is not improvement. In fact, if you look at the outcomes of 20 years of so-called "education reform" (for a primer, read Diane Ravitch's new book), it becomes very clear that reform does not mean improvement. In many ways, it means regression in the form of a cementing a persistent education gap, re-segregating schools, and decreasing the morale for generally hard-working teachers and parents across the nation.

Those who frame their arguments in terms of "education reform" have been pushing for market-based solutions, mainly in the form of privatization or decentralization, while they claim they have the best interest of children at heart. These groups generally rely on one type of data to assess student learning, results from high-stakes standardized tests. Education reformers claim that "poverty is no excuse" and a lack of resources are not the problem (H.L. Mencken once said "When somebody says it's not about the money, it's about the money."). The education reformers create groups with names that no one can argue against, like "Stand for Children," "Teach for America," "Education Reform Now." They say, unlike career teachers and their unions or parent groups like the PTA, they are dedicated to helping all children get an quality education. Yet, there is an important narrative all these reformers have in common: Our schools are failing, now it is their turn to "reform" them. They generally tie the failures of the American economy to the lack of education reform and contend that if their reforms are not implemented, the U.S. will loose its global economic standing.

However, education reform is not a goal; it is an action. Educational improvement is the goal. Groups that believe in public education, equity of resources, desegregation and support for multiculturalism, and increasing teacher professionalism and retention, need to begin framing the debate in terms of "education reform" vs. "education improvement." Reduction in class size, increasing resources to the neediest schools, supporting the professional development of teachers, increasing teacher pay - these are all part of education improvement. These are what the globally high-achieving educational systems, such as Canada, Finland, Singapore, are enacting in their nations and they offer a different path to "improve," rather than "reform," the educational system in the United States.

Learning from Singapore: Part 4

In this final reflection on my visit to Singapore and its education system, I am choosing to examine Singapore's attempt to teach multiculturalism through its schools and society. Like the United States, Singapore is a multicultural society, as well as a multilingual and multi-religious society. Their nation's ethnic demographics are: 76.8% Chinese, 13.9% Malay, 7.9% Indian, and 1.4% other. As someone who studies multicultural education, I was intrigued to see firsthand how Singapore addresses the many different groups within their nation educationally. I was lucky enough to visit during the convergence of two important multicultural holidays: Hari Raya Puasa and Singapore National Day. Hari Raya Puasa, also known as Hari Raya Aidilfitri, is the Muslim celebration of Eid al-Fitr at the conclusion of Ramadan. This holiday is rooted in the Muslim Malay community of Singapore, an ethnic minority. I was able to walk the bazaar, where food, clothing, and other celebration items were on sale. My wonderful host and friend Karen Lam, who works for the Ministry of Education, makes it a point to immerse herself in one community activity during each of the many ethnic holidays in Singapore. In Singapore, many non-Muslims visit the bazaars and partake in the celebrations at the end of Ramadan. A few days later was National Day, which celebrates Singapore's independence from Malaysia in 1965. This year's slogan was "Many Stories, One Singapore" and it emphasized the many different people that call Singapore home.

Singapore is a nation that projects strong narratives. Whether it is a narrative crafted through architecture, technology, or multiculturalism, they aspire to be better. However, their multicultural narrative rests more on "national unity" than "embracing differences." For example, the following language was used to describe this year's National Day theme: "all interconnected through our shared stories and history" and "despite our different backgrounds, we are one Singapore." The Singapore narrative on multiculturalism projects a desire to overcome some of the historical ethnic divisions. The reality is there are still signs of ethnic segregation in housing, education, and income. This is particularly prevalent in the ethnic make up of low-wage workers in Singapore, many of whom are Indian and Filipino. Despite the inequities in their society, Singapore has taken the important step of acknowledging this and framing a national conversation on how to improve this (For example, there are racial quotas imposed on public housing, which the vast majority of Singaporeans live in).

Historically, the education system in Singapore did not address multicultural education. British imperialism divided and separated ethnic groups, resulting in separate schools based on ethnicity. Today, Singapore has made great strides in reversing years of ethnic separation in schooling and preserving the many cultures of Singapore. The Ministry of Education has an official stance of creating national unity while helping "citizens not to lose their cultural heritage or traditional values." They have done this by providing required instructions in student's mother tongue (Chinese, Malay, Tamil) along side English. Moreover, "Every year, schools commemorate a few key events that mark the defining moments of Singapore's history... [including] Racial Harmony Day [and] ... International Friendship Day." Singapore has also increased civics education, with an emphasis on multicultural and global citizenship. More can be done. Much of the multicultural education in Singapore is still focused on the three Fs (food, flags, and festivals), but Singapore has taken important steps forward. The United States could benefit from similar attempts, especially teaching the "mother tongue" of our immigrant students or emphasizing the importance of international friendship and racial harmony in our school holidays (and curriculum).

I appreciate all of the kind people of Singapore, who supported my visit. My trip to Singapore was eye-opening and I could not have accomplished this trip without their help. I look forward to returning in the future and learning more about this amazing little red dot.

Teaching About the Birmingham 16th Street Baptist Church Bombing: Remembering 50 Years Later

 

On this date 50 years ago, members of the Ku Klux Klan bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, killing Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson and Denise McNair, who were four girls attending Sunday School in the basement. This bombing followed Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's "Birmingham Campaign, which included the "Children's Crusade," where children were encouraged to protest in the streets leading to the use of police dogs and fire hoses on children by segregationist Commissioner of Public Safety "Bull" Connor. The murder of four innocent girls in the church bombing opened the nation's eyes to the level of brutality and violent resistance that could be waged against desegregation. One of the most powerful historical sources for teaching the bombing is Dudley Randall's "Ballad of Birmingham." 

Ballad of Birmingham 
By Dudley Randall (On the bombing of a church in Birmingham, Alabama, 1963)

"Mother dear, may I go downtown
Instead of out to play,
And march the streets of Birmingham
In a Freedom March today?”

“No, baby, no, you may not go,
For the dogs are fierce and wild,
And clubs and hoses, guns and jails
Aren’t good for a little child.”

“But, mother, I won’t be alone.
Other children will go with me,
And march the streets of Birmingham
To make our country free.”

“No, baby, no, you may not go,
For I fear those guns will fire.
But you may go to church instead
And sing in the children’s choir.”

She has combed and brushed her night-dark hair,
And bathed rose petal sweet,
And drawn white gloves on her small brown hands,
And white shoes on her feet.

The mother smiled to know her child
Was in the sacred place,
But that smile was the last smile
To come upon her face.

For when she heard the explosion,
Her eyes grew wet and wild.
She raced through the streets of Birmingham
Calling for her child.

She clawed through bits of glass and brick,
Then lifted out a shoe.
“O, here’s the shoe my baby wore,
But, baby, where are you?”

 

Learning from Singapore: Part 3

My second visit in Singapore was the National Institute of Education (NIE), where I met with their humanities and social studies teacher education faculty members Mark Baildon, Ho Li-Ching, and Chelva Rajah. Mark, Li-Ching, and Chelva are my counterparts in Singapore and our conversations were thought-provoking.

The NIE, located at Nanyang Technological University, houses the only teacher preparation program in Singapore. This allows Singapore to have greater curriculum consistency across their teachers' preparation. Like many universities in the U.S., the NIE has two tracks for entering teaching, a 4 year bachelor's program or a 1 year master's program. Singapore is a nation of 5.3 million people in 225 square miles. It is relatively comparable to Massachusetts, which has a population of 6.6 million (however, that is across 7,800 square miles). Throughout my visit to the NIE, I was envisioning what this would look like in Massachusetts. Even with 80 institutions and organizations that prepare teachers (a number that has risen in recent years with the increasing number of non-university entities, such as Boston Teacher Residency and Teach for America), could Massachusetts ever have the same consistency in teacher preparation as Singapore?

Much like some of the social studies teacher preparation programs in Massachusetts, NIE's faculty has increased their emphasis on inquiry-based teaching. However, three differences struck me about their program. First, the social studies program houses both teacher educators and disciplinary educators. The floor was comprised of professors that taught courses in social studies pedagogy, but also social studies content. For example, a history educator's office is located across the hall from a historian's office. This appeared to allow for regular conversations between those who teach content and those who teach pedagogy, and acknowledged that both groups need to teach both content and pedagogy together. It seemed to help break down the traditional divide between schools of education and colleges of arts and science, which is quite common in U.S. universities. It made me think about the rarity of social studies education professors and history and social science professors collaborating in U.S. Since history and social science professors usually teach future social studies teachers, bridging that divide through unified purpose, location, and regular department meetings could be helpful.

Second, as part of their faculty, the NIE has Senior Teaching Fellows and Teaching Fellows. These are experienced teachers who work with the preservice teachers in their programs. This model allows for experienced educators with significant practical knowledge of teaching to be working along side traditional teacher educators with significant knowledge of research and theory (and who sometimes may have less practical knowledge).

Third, NIE's teacher education programs, through the Ministry of Education, pay teachers at entrance to the program. Preservice teachers are considered teachers from the moment they enter the program. Moreover, the Ministry of Education pays students' tuition with a requirement that they will teach in Singapore. This allows teachers to not become saddled in debt (Singapore also pays their teachers well) and ensures that teachers who are being prepared will most likely find teaching positions upon graduation (two problems preservice teachers face in Massachusetts). During my visit, I was imagining how this could look in Massachusetts or other U.S. states. It seems quite difficult with the current free-market system of teacher preparation. In some fields there are too many teachers being prepared, while other fields have shortages - in both cases the lack of coordination is clear. Would a central agency to manage that help? At minimum, could the state (or local municipalities) recruit teachers before their are prepared, then pay them and their tuition during teacher preparation, with the assurance that they will teach in a district for their career? There are programs that have attempted to create this, such as Teach Next Year or Boston Teacher Residency, but can it be done on a larger scale and with state government-university partnerships? Do alternative-route programs like Teach for America, with high turnover and short-term teacher commitments, make this type of teacher pipeline more difficult?

Finally, while at the NIE, I learned about two new ideas that the NIE had recently begun to implement. The first was their brown bag series, where students come to listen to short talks on social studies-related topics that may not be typically taught in coursework. Second, is the new release of their own publication on teaching and learning called SingTeach, which this month features the work of Mark and Li-Ching. Although our conversations about these new initiatives were brief, I am curious to see if either add a new dimension to the preparation of Singapore teachers.

Teaching About Labor Rights: Turn of the 20th Century Labor Simulation on Labor Day

Labor Day was first proposed in 1882 in New York City and it became a federal holiday in 1894 following the deaths that year of striking workers during the Pullman Strike (Click here for a lesson plan involving a Pullman Strike Mock Trial). To help students better understand the history of workers, unions, immigration, and industry, on this Labor Day, I am posting a Labor Simulation Activity, which was created by myself and former colleagues at Framingham High School. In this simulation, students take on the roles of immigrant laborers, industrial factory owner, political boss, and labor union organizer. By the end of the activity students should have a better understanding of the complex political and social structures that governed the lives of immigrant workers. Following this activity, I also recommend using this Tenement Problem Solving activity to help students gain understanding of the conditions immigrants faced in the inadequate tenement housing of the time.

Teaching About the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom: 50 Years Later

Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the March on Washington. During the rally afterward, Martin Luther King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech (click below). It is probably the most well known American speech and it is often played yearly in many U.S. history classrooms around the nation during their civil rights movement units.

I am a social studies education professor at Martin Luther King's alma mater, Boston University (where he became "Dr." Martin Luther King), and while he was studying here, he lived in my neighborhood of Dorchester. The closeness of his early history creates a special place in my heart for him and his work. However, when I reflected on this important date, I decided to write about what is commonly not known about the 1963 March on Washington. In many ways, it is the stories of the other people involved in the rally and march. As social studies teachers, it is crucial that we are teaching the full story and examining this moment in history at a deeper level then it usually receives. How can we help our students see that this day represented not just one person's speech, but a grassroots movement of thousands of people working for equality and justice?

Here are some things you may want to teach about the March on Washington:

1. It was the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Often the last part of the title gets dropped. One of the main themes of the civil rights movement in general, and Martin Luther King's work in the 1960s, in particular, was economic justice. In fact, when MLK was assassinated in 1968, he was in Memphis to support and rally striking sanitation workers fighting for fair pay.

2. The march was originally planned over 20 years earlier. A. Philip Randolph, with his colleague Bayard Rustin, first called for a march on Washington in the 1940s to illuminate discriminatory hiring practices in the war industry. However, 1963 seems an appropriate year to finally achieve their vision; it was the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation and a time when there was pending civil rights legislation stalled on Capitol Hill.

3. Martin Luther King gave a very similar speech to "I Have a Dream" in Detroit in the months beforehand. Tying into themes of poverty and social inequality, there were, however, some different lines, such as "I have a dream this afternoon, that one day, right here in Detroit," King said, "Negroes will be able to buy a house or rent a house anywhere that their money will carry them, and they will be able to get a job."

4. Unions played a major role in supporting the march. Although the AFL-CIO did not endorse the march and the reality is that many labor unions restricted Black membership, unions (especially those organized and led by Black workers or did not use race to restrict membership) supported the rally and the greater movement for racial equality. Also, often forgotten, are the many unions that organized, transported, and supported marchers.

5. There was a radical history behind the rally, which has been suppressed in the popular media. This was particularly strong among the students at the rally. John Lewis, one of the founders of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee was asked to remove segments of his speech that were critical of the Kennedy administration and many other student speakers (and their supporters) wanted to be more critical and aggressive in their rhetoric. The organizers of the rally, A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin, were both pacifists and socialists. They did not focus on only stopping racism, but stopping all forms of oppression, including their work for economic justice. They were both motivated by the work of W.E.B. Du Bois (a radical of his time), particularly his book, "The Souls of Black Folk." Furthermore, Bayard Rustin was gay and out, which not only was progressive for the time, but it also risked his personal freedom (he was jailed for homosexuality in 1953), as well as his safety and well-being (as anti-gay violence was quite prevalent). He would later become a vocal advocate for gay rights.

The media estimated that over 200,000 people attended the march and rally; organizers believed it was closer to a million. Regardless of the numbers, the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom raised the profile of the movement. Many historians believe it helped motivate some politicians to change their position on civil rights issues, ultimately leading the the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, Martin Luther King and the movement's mission did not end in the 1960s. Civil rights organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Council of La Raza, Japanese American Citizens League, Organization of Chinese Americans, Native American Rights Fund, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and the National Organization for Women continue much of this work. Racism and discrimination is certainly still with us. From the recent Supreme Court decision gutting a major provision of the Voting Rights Act to the killing of Trayvon Martin, race is still one of the main dividing factors in the United States. More than 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, school segregation is increasing and the employment gap between Blacks and Whites persists. If we are to truly begin to achieve MLK and the movement's dream, we must confront the embedded racism, calls for colorblindness, and evident link between Whiteness and power. 

When I was a high school social studies teacher in Framingham, Massachusetts, Mark Kissling was a close colleague. Like myself, he is now a professor of social studies education (at Penn State) and he wrote this thought-provoking editorial reflecting on today's anniversary. He asks, what would MLK say today about civil rights and the movement. He links his argument to Cornell West's recent profound reflection that, "Brother Martin would not be invited to the very march in his name, because he would talk about drones. He’d talk about Wall Street criminality." I would add that MLK would most likely focus his arguments and speeches on poverty and our nation's persistent oppression and injustice. Let's not let his voice, and especially the voice of the movement, fade.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/08/28/3758700/reflections-on-kings-dream-50.html#storylink=cI encourage you to read it.

Learning from Singapore: Part 2

My first visit in Singapore was to the Academy of Singapore Teachers (AST), where I met with history Master Teacher Andrew Anthony. Unlike the U.S., Singapore has decided to increase their focus on inservice professional development. In 2010, AST was established by the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) to be the backbone of that effort. It is currently housed in a former high school building, but one day it will be relocated to the Ministry of Education. The purpose of AST is to coordinate the professional development of teachers and offer enriching inservice courses. My wife (a science educator) and I were able to sit in on course for elementary teachers on students' alternative conceptions of science (which in many ways paralleled the work being done by the Science Department in the Boston Public Schools). In our conversation, Andrew explained to me that in Singapore, a teacher is never prevented from attending professional development by their principals and their principals are always given adequate support with substitutes. Teachers are entitled to at least 100 hours (during the work day) of professional development a year. This includes a mix of full-day and half-day PD sessions. Teachers are also encouraged to attend PD outside of the MOE, as well as attend and present at international conferences.

Another goal of the Academy of Singapore Teachers is to help teachers integrate the curriculum (which they refer to as syllabi) into the teachers' classrooms and support reflective practice. In 2001, Singapore revised its history syllabus and associated assessment to focus more on inquiry-based history. To be honest, what I heard from several Singaporean sources is that while the syllabus and assessment changed, much of the teaching has not. Although more teachers in Singapore are using more primary sources because the assessment requires it through a document-based question, many are still not having their students engage in inquiry in the classroom. While many of the newer teachers and some of the more open-minded experienced teachers have embraced the change, AST is part of that puzzle to help Singapore's history teachers truly start to integrate inquiry-based learning in their classrooms.

Singapore's has chosen to have a strong focus on pedagogy as a means for improving their education system. Over the past two decades many education reformers in the U.S. have focused heavily on content knowledge (which was essentially the focus of Singaporean education in the 1980s and 1990s) and lambasted schools of education for their practices around teaching pedagogy. However, it was clear from my visit to AST (as well as other segments of the education system in Singapore) that they do not want teachers to only think about content, but more importantly, how to teach that content to their students.

While the U.S. continues to marginalize history and the other disciplines in social studies, it appears that Singapore has decided to increase social studies education. They have separated history, geography, and social studies into separate subjects, and increase their teaching of civics. While the Common Core in the U.S. only includes social studies standards related to literacy and only for grades 6-12, Singapore's elementary social studies curriculum is extensive.

Finally, an interesting idea that the U.S. should consider adopting from Singapore, perhaps at the state level, is subject chapters and meaningful career ladder options for teachers. To support inservice teachers, AST has created subject chapters, where teachers can collaborate or share ideas through a professional fraternity. Andrew Anthony is the head of the History Chapter. Although the U.S. has many professional organizations (i.e. NCSS, MCSS), a government-sponsored organization that allows for teachers to share their ideas and collaborate on a regular basis seems to offer a real innovation in professional development. Beyond the subject chapters, Singapore has created three tracks fir advancement (teaching, leadership, and senior specialist) and in the "teaching track" there are four levels of advancement (see below). The teaching track allows teachers a career ladder, while helping keeping them in the classroom. Although this track is relatively new, it allows some teachers to work as master teachers (such as Andrew Anthony) or principal master teachers, where others may become senior or lead teachers, all supporting other teachers.

 

Learning from Singapore: Part 1

Singapore is one of the highest-performing nations on international standardized tests. In fact, it is one of the few countries that out-performs Massachusetts on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS). However, Singapore is also concerned that their education system has an over-emphasis on standardized testing and not enough development of creativity and critical thinking (something many experts in Singapore argue the U.S. does better). To address this, the Singapore Ministry of Education has pushed for a more "student-centric" education system. They have encouraged their teachers to "teach less," so that students might "learn more." However, the story is quite different in the United States, which continues to increase its emphasis on standardized testing. As a result, there is more emphasis on math, science, and literacy, at the expense of social studies, world languages, art, and other subjects. Meanwhile, Singapore has not only continued to support a robust history education curriculum for its students, but it has increased emphasis on civics education.

In an attempt to exchange ideas with Singaporean teachers and teacher educators, I will soon be traveling there to learn first-hand about their education system. I will be meeting with Ministry of Education officials, master teachers, and social studies education professors at the National Institute of Education to gain a better understanding of their social studies curriculum and teaching practices. I hope to focus on their views of history education and teacher education. I also hope to share my work in social studies education, teacher education, and my advocacy for teacher research. Over the next month, I will use this blog to reflect on what I am learning as a teacher, teacher educator, and researcher in Singapore.

Teaching About Trayvon Martin

Anger. Frustration. Sadness. Disbelief. These are just some of the emotions I felt on Sunday morning when I woke to an NPR story explaining that George Zimmerman was found not guilty on all counts in the Trayvon Martin murder case. The fact that the "Stand Your Ground" law permitted a man to follow and then murder an unarmed teenager seems to be the epitome of injustice. This, of course, was framed by the role of race in our legal system. I continue to ask myself, "If George Zimmerman was Black and Trayvon Martin was White, would the proceedings have reached the same conclusion?" 

The verdict immediately made me think about history. It evoked my memories of 1992 and the Rodney King beating trial and subsequent LA Riots. It reminded me of the group chants I saw on television proclaiming, "Is this America, or South Africa?" It made me think of all those times I have taught about the Emmett Till murder. In both trials, the injustice was as much a problem of individual racism, as it was systematic racism and flawed law (the law in 1955 Mississippi did not allow people of color to serve on juries and the law in 1992 California law favored use of force by police officers). In searching the Internet, I found Ta-Nehisi Coates's poignant discussion of the Trayvon Martin murder case, where he reflects not only the "Stand Your Ground" law, but also the criminalization of the victim, Trayvon Martin, in the media. 

Continuing to reflect on the verdict, I thought about my experiences as someone who lives in a racially and economic diverse place (the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston) and the reality that many of teenagers I routinely pass by in the street or the children of my friends or neighbors could have been Trayvon Martin. As a former high school teacher at a diverse school, Trayvon Martin could have been one of my students. However, many White Americans do not see Trayvon Martin as someone they could have known. They live in places where they have limited chances to meet Black teenagers. With schools becoming increasingly segregated and the racial and economic segregation of our neighborhoods persisting, we have a serious problem with racial division. This racial division allows a Black teenager walking through a White neighborhood to seem suspicious. At a recent Roxbury vigil for Trayvon Martin, one of the speakers raised the point that the protest we were participating in was important, but it would not be until we see vigils for Trayvon Martin in the White communities of the area, in the Wellesley's and the Newton's, that will we know progress is being made.

As teachers, and especially social studies teachers, we must take moments of injustice like these and turn it into opportunities to teach for justice. Whether we teach in a diverse or racially segregated context, we should be having our students examine the Trayvon Martin case, question the current racial and economic segregation of the United States, and analyze the media coverage and state gun laws. We should allow our classrooms to be a place for our students to reflect, but also have constructive conversations on the meaning of the trial and the role of race in U.S. history. We should allow our students to examine the similarities and differences between the Trayvon Martin and Emmett Till murders. We should ask if the reaction to the Rodney King trial verdict and the Trayvon Martin verdict are equally justifiable? If we do this, then then we are beginning the necessary conversations that will help our nation work closer toward racial justice.

 

Teaching About Canada's History in the United States History Classroom

Tomorrow Canadians will celebrate their most important national holiday, Canada Day/Fête du Canada, which celebrates the joining of Québec and Ontario with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia creating the federation of Canada. The history of the United States is so closely linked to Canada that it is a travesty that Canadian history is rarely taught as part of a typical U.S. history class. In fact, Americans have very little knowledge of their neighbors to the north. A poll last year in Toronto's National Post found that less than half of Americans can name Canada's capital and very few Americans can name the current Prime Minister.

What events should be discussed in a U.S. history class? First, most Americans do not know that the U.S. invaded Canada at least three times (French and Indian War, War of Independence, and War of 1812). From the French and Indian War (also known in French-speaking Canada as La guerre de la Conquête or The War of Conquest) to genocides committed by New Englanders in Arcadia during the colonial era, Americans have been aggressors toward Canadians before there was even a United States. From being the end of the line of the Underground Railroad to supporting the north during the Civil War and allowing the Lakota Indians led by Sitting Bull to stay in Canada after fleeing from the U.S. government, Canadians have often supported racial justice in the U.S. (in fact, Canada has an incredibly important multicultural provision in their constitution). Finally, the 20th century saw the strengthening of U.S.-Canadian relations as the two countries were allies in World War I and II, and the Korean War, as well as the controversial signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement that was put into effect in 1994 (and to this day has been blamed for massive job losses in both Canada and the U.S.).

Happy birthday Canada, and here is hoping in the next year that Americans learn more about you...

(In case you are American, above is a picture of Ottawa, which is the capital of Canada. It was in part chosen the capital in 1857 because Queen Victoria was advised its distance from the U.S. border could help it be more defensible from a possible U.S. invasion)

The Tale of Two Education Reports

Two national groups hope to influence education with the release this week of their widely publicized education reports. On first glance the two reports seem to have little in common. The first report published by the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) attempts to rank teacher preparation programs, while the second report published by American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS) examines the teaching of the humanities and social sciences in K-12 schools. Yet, these reports offer book ends of the same debate over the future of our public education system. Whether intentional, both reports speak to major flaws in the the market-based education reform movement's infatuation with education as a means to serve the economy, as well as its obsession with data-driven instruction.

Numerous scholars, including Linda Darling-Hammond, Diane Ravitch, Aaron Pallas, Michael Feuer, Bruce Baker, Mercedes Schneider, Ed Fuller, Jack Hassard, Donald Heller, and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, have highlighted the problems with the recent National Council on Teacher Quality "Teacher Prep Review" report (on the flip side, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan praised it). For those who do not know much about NCTQ, it was created by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Foundation to directly challenge university-based teacher education. As such, it is not surprising that their report found most university-based teacher preparation programs were inadequate. Its board members include education reformers that favor deprofessionalizing teacher preparation, including Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee. Due to the controversial nature of NCTQ and concerns about data collection, many schools of education (including my own institution, Boston University) refused to provide data. Yet, NCTQ rated many of these teacher preparation programs regardless, and if you look at their report, attempt to publicly shame those institutions that did not share data. 

Despite its research-like appearance, this report is not educational research. The NCTQ report collected syllabi from institutions along with entrance exam scores and used that to rate teacher preparation programs. It is essentially a document reviews without any serious methodology or peer review and based on erroneous or missing data. The report's rating system is primarily based on each teacher preparation program's selectivity and content alignment to the Common Core standards. However, neither variable are an accurate measure of a program's overall quality. The vast majority of critiques of this report can be summed up with Richard Allington's comment, "Imagine a person reviews the restaurants in your city by examining the menus they found on-line. Never tasted the food or ever visited any restaurant." This report assessed teacher preparation programs without ever observing a single course, interviewing a single instructor, or surveying any students. This is not an honest assessment of our nation's teacher preparation programs. Rather, it is a underhanded attempt to undermine the university-based teacher preparation system that has made dramatic improvements over the past two decades. It is indicative of the current state of education reform in the United States.

Meanwhile, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences released their own report titled "The Heart of the Matter." This report was supported by a panel of liberal and conservative politicians and commentators, as well as actors, artists, and media personalities and documented the state of humanities and social sciences in K-12 schools. Although this report was suppose to be earth-shattering, it has been drowned out by the recent uproar caused by the more controversial NCTQ report and a recent scandal involving the resume of the AAAS's director. However, the findings of this report should have received much more media attention. In sum, the report finds that the United States has focused too much educational attention on math and sciences at the expense of the humanities and social sciences. Consequently, the school disciplines that help students develop certain types of creativity, civic knowledge, and understanding of the human experience are being neglected. Meanwhile, other high-performing nations, like Singapore and Finland, are increasing their instruction in the humanities. My main critique of the report is that it suffers from the same obsession with market-based education reform as the NCTQ report. Although not to the same extent, it frames the need for more education in the humanities and social science as an economic imperative. Despite this, the report illuminates the dilemma a nation is put in when it chooses to focus its resources and energy into the school subjects it believes are more important for the economy. It is important to provide a well-rounded education, which includes a diverse array of school subjects.

Teaching About the Open Door Policy, Boxer Uprising, and U.S. Imperialism

On this date in 1900, the Righteous Harmony Society began a 55-day siege against primarily European powers stationed to protect their economic interests in Beijing. This resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 civilians, 32,000 Chinese Christians, and 200 American and European missionaries stationed in the country. Ultimately, what was referred to by the Chinese as the Yihetuan Movement and the Boxer Rebellion by the Europeans, would be the beginning of the end for the Qing Dynasty. How and why did this happen?

The Boxer uprising took place in a context of a crippled economy and a severe drought in China, but also the growing economic and political influence of outsiders. Only two years after the U.S. won the booty of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines in the Spanish American War and while the U.S. was still fighting against Filipino rebels, Secretary of State John Hay issued a series of notes describing the United States' position toward China. The Open Door Policy, as it would be labeled, argued that multiple European powers, the United States, and Japan should have open access to trade in China. As these nations began to stake their economic claims, a resistance movement began to gain traction. The Open Door Policy and related Boxer uprising is often dwarfed in U.S. history classes by the Spanish American War and territorialization of Hawaii in the same period, but offer an important case study for students on U.S. imperialism and helps explain the long and contention relationship between China and the United States.

Here are several resources on the Open Door Policy and the Boxer Rebellion, which can be a starting point for teachers in helping students understand the varying historical perspectives of these events.

Resource: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/opendoor.htm

Resource: http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/lesson-4-imperialism-and-open-door

Resource: http://ncta.osu.edu/lessons/china/history/swangerK-ch.pdf

Resource: http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/empire-building/essays/open-door-policy-and-boxer-war-us-and-china

Resource: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/1900/filmmore/reference/interview/lafeber_boxerrebellion.html 

Resource: http://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/HayandChina

Resource: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq86-1.htm

Teaching About Race and the Last 20 Years of U.S. History

 

With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, many journalists and commentators declared that the U.S. was now in a post-racial era. This sentiment was echoed by many White students in one of my recent studies that examined students' conceptions of Whiteness in the history classroom. However, racism still persists and can be seen in the educational opportunity gap, the differences in unemployment between racial groups, and the under-representation of people of color in government. Almost 50 years after Martin Luther King gave his famous "I Have a Dream Speech," the United States is far from equal. It is crucial that social studies teachers continue to help students understand and challenge the social and political inequalities that exist in our country. As the end the school year approaches, many teachers are preparing their units on the past 20 years. Any modern U.S. history unit would not be complete without an examination of the intersection of race and history. The following three events could comprise the core of that unit.

Overarching question: Some in the media have suggested that the United States is now post-racial, meaning devoid of racial preference and discrimination. After learning about the following three events, do you agree that recent U.S. history was devoid of racial preference and discrimination?

The Rodney King Beating and the Los Angeles Riots:

Twilight Los Angeles

LA Riots: Then and Now

Uprising: Hip Hop and the LA Riots

LA Times: LA Riots in Photography

Hurricane Katrina:

When the Levees Broke

Katrina's Hidden Race War

National Geographic Hurricane Katrina Special

The Times-Picayune Coverage

NAFTA, Migrant Farm Workers, and Immigration Reform:

NAFTA Carousel Activity

PBS Need to Know: NAFTA

30 Days: Immigration Reform

Precious Knowledge Documentary

PBS News Hour Immigration Reform Lesson Plan

New York Times Immigration Reform Lesson Plan

Mayoral Forum on Education: Recap

Recently, I expressed my concern that powerful corporate-backed education reform groups and venture-philanthropists are trying to influence both the state legislature and the Boston mayoral race. Along these lines, I highlighted that several of these education reform groups were hosting the first Boston mayoral candidate forum. Adam Gaffin of Universal Hub had an excellent commentary on the debate. As a Boston resident, I also attended the forum to help inform my choice in the upcoming election. After reflecting on the forum, I have grouped the candidates into three camps: market-based reformers, supporters of district schools, and no clear vision. I will summarize the candidates based on these groupings.

Market-Based Reformers:
This camp was entrenched in the market-based reform ideology of the groups hosting the event (Stand for Children, Teach for America, Education Reform Now). These candidates desire more decentralization in the Boston Public Schools. They made clear their support for charter schools, turnaround powers, and outside organizations managing district schools.

John Connolly has been running on an education reform platform since he first declared his candidacy back in February. During the forum, Connolly accused the Boston Teachers Union of being the main barrier to the school district's improvement. I found most troubling his position on taking power away from the central office at Court Street and decentralizing the school district. In his ideal system, each school would function on its own, which he envisions as freeing these schools to be innovative (essentially make the entire district comprised of independent charter schools). This view proves to be incredibly naïve, as it ignores the reality that most charter schools have student populations that are self-selecting and do not represent similar populations to the district schools. For district schools to improve, they actually need centralized leadership and support to guide them in these school improvements.

Dan Conley highlighted his background in the justice system, which ultimately exposed his lack of educational knowledge. It was frustrating listening to him say repetitively "studies show," when it was clear he has limited understanding of educational research. At one point, he declared to the audience that he had no idea why the state hasn't abolished the cap on charter schools, but he could offer very little explanation as to why more charter schools were needed beyond "they get results." Finally, his most concerning comment was that he will treat teacher "training" (his word, not mine) like he trains his attorneys. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how quality teachers are prepared.

Mike Ross expressed very similar educational views to to the others in this camp. He showed support for lifting the charter school cap, but added that it should be done carefully and that he did not know how many charter schools were a good number. Mike Ross cited his respect for Geoffrey Canada and the schools he runs in New York (Although there is much to admire about the Harlem Children Zone, with its wrap-around social services, I wonder if he know that the it is also notorious for pushing students out and they even "fired" a class of under-performing students?). Yet, Mike Ross's most unusual statement was that across the nation it is commonplace for traditional districts to be improved by the presence of charter schools. In reality, there have been numerous studies on charter schools, including the rigorous Stanford CREDO study, that show charter schools generally have similar or worse results to their district peers. Other studies show that charter schools tend to be more racially and economically segregated than district schools. Finally, I am unsure where Mike Ross read that charter schools make districts better. I assume he either refers to a policy paper from the conservative Manhattan Institute or a similar report from the Department of Education, neither of which are research.

The last member of this group was John Barros. He established one of the first in-district charter schools in Boston, would like to lift the charter school cap, and, showing his lack of educational knowledge, cited New Orleans as one of the best urban success stories in the country and one that Boston can learn from. Interestingly, New Orleans, with more than 70% of its students attending charter schools, is one of the lowest performing districts in the country, and Boston, with only 8.7% of its students enrolled in charter schools, is one of the best. I recently read Kristen Buras' eye-opening book on the privatization of the New Orleans public schools and the impact on students. I would recommend others do the same.

Supporters of District Schools:
This camp expressed the view that the Boston Public Schools are a high-quality urban system, that any reform must include working with the teachers union and district administrators, and that the focus should be on struggling schools within BPS, rather than charter schools. I spend less time analyzing their comments and supplying data, because their answers were more aligned to my description of BPS in the preceding post.

Felix Arroyo attempted to show that he was a strong supporter of in-district schools and BPS. First, he cited that many of his family members, including his wife, teach in the system. He highlighted several times that he attended BPS through high school (unlike John Connolly, for instance, who attended Roxbury Latin, a private school in West Roxbury). In front of an audience that was generally supportive of market-based reforms, Felix Arroyo said he did not support raising the cap on charter schools and that BPS would be the main focus of his mayoral administration, as he would "double-down" on the public schools. He discussed his concern for English language learners and his experiences as an native Spanish speaker.

Marty Walsh declared that the system can only be improved by working with the Boston Teachers Union and that attacking teachers will not improve the system. He advocated for expansion of vocational schools, like Madison Park, and pre-kindergarten to all residents of the city. Although his stance on the charter cap was very nuanced, he expressed that lifting the cap will not be the panacea that some hope it to be.

Rob Consalvo focused on the positive developments in recent years in the Boston Public Schools. He framed BPS's struggles in terms of limited resources and lack of collaboration. He emphasized the importance of parent involvement and discussed the need for more active parent engagement. Stating that he supported charter schools, he argued that it would not be appropriate to raise the charter cap at this time.

Charles Yancey discussed the many educational programs he created and supported as a longtime city councilor. He was genuine and displayed his passion for constitute services. At times, this meant that he did not directly address the question at hand. However, he had the most poignant comment of the night when he stated that he didn't want to discourage charters, but frankly, as mayor it would not be his job to help charters, but to instead fix BPS and draw kids away from charters. He felt that the charter school cap was necessary and that Boston's mayor should really only care about the district schools.

No Clear Vision:
This final camp seemed well meaning, but lacked any strong opinions about the issues. Both candidates in this group discussed charter schools as positive, but also not the only solution. Both candidates shared stories of successful district schools that should be models for other schools and they seemed generally supportive of BPS. They both discussed the need to share practices across schools. It was somewhat difficult to analyze most of their comments on education due to their relatively vague answers.

Charlotte Golar Richie emphasized her background in both city and state government. She framed her discussion in terms of the achievement gap, but also a resource gap. She called BPS a great district and cited the Broad Prize. Often her answers were very eloquent, but somewhat vague. I left not really knowing her stances on the key educational issues.

Bill Walczak highlighted the need for strong school leadership in any successful school. He discussed the role of the principal in leading teachers and that he would attempt to lengthen the school day by working with the union. He supports increasing the number of charter schools in Boston, but also wants to increase the Level 1 and Level 2 disctrict schools.

You can watch video of the forum here and judge for yourself (you can enlarge it to full screen):