Comments on: Teach for America to Replace Veteran Teachers: Part II http://www.markgarrison.net/archives/572 Countering Disinformation in Thinking About Education & Society Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:28:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Mark Garrison http://www.markgarrison.net/archives/572/comment-page-1#comment-17 Mark Garrison Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:49:46 +0000 http://www.markgarrison.net/archives/572#comment-17 Thanks Kevin. While I'm glad my snark appeals, I'm increasingly and seriously interested in the outlook that is embedded in much of the current education "reform" -- notions of closing "achievement gaps", corporate charter models (e.g., KIPP and Green Dot, what I call academic sweatshops), and TFA have similar ideological underpinnings that are akin to the idea of white man's burden. Since you're more of a literary type than I, you may have insight on Kipling, justifications for imperialism, and how these "foreign affairs" inform policy towards U.S social institutions such as schools. Much of this "reform" is academic bostrapping on steroids. It seems significant that the "<a href="http://schoolsmatter.blogspot.com/search?q=philanthropy" rel="nofollow">philanthropy</a>" that stands behind much of this reform is so explicitly imbued with the premise "that white people ... have an obligation to rule over, and encourage the cultural development of people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds until they can take their place in the world by fully adopting Western ways" (from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>) On the other point that you raise, beware of the call to link individual student data to individual teachers, and assertions that the result of this linkage is some measure of teacher performance. See <a href="http://www.shermandorn.com/mt/archives/002945.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> for one take on why this is a bad idea. More generally, it is important to understand that at least since Horace Mann in the middle of the nineteenth century, calls for data on teacher performance -- yes, it started back then -- were driven by efforts to secure administrative powers over local schools. Yes, of course this was done under the guise of improving instruction, and yes, much of what went on would be rejected by modern sensibilities, but the outcome was nonetheless change in power arrangements, with a loss of power for the Boston schoolmasters. Setting standards of performance in education has historically been about control and purpose, and less about actual quality. The federal initiative to close schools, impose federal standards, dictate to states charter school policy is driven not by "data" but a profound political crisis. Data never drive, nor should "they". The question is always one of purpose, and of course, this poses the question of who decides. Thanks Kevin. While I’m glad my snark appeals, I’m increasingly and seriously interested in the outlook that is embedded in much of the current education “reform” — notions of closing “achievement gaps”, corporate charter models (e.g., KIPP and Green Dot, what I call academic sweatshops), and TFA have similar ideological underpinnings that are akin to the idea of white man’s burden. Since you’re more of a literary type than I, you may have insight on Kipling, justifications for imperialism, and how these “foreign affairs” inform policy towards U.S social institutions such as schools. Much of this “reform” is academic bostrapping on steroids. It seems significant that the “philanthropy” that stands behind much of this reform is so explicitly imbued with the premise “that white people … have an obligation to rule over, and encourage the cultural development of people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds until they can take their place in the world by fully adopting Western ways” (from Wikipedia)

On the other point that you raise, beware of the call to link individual student data to individual teachers, and assertions that the result of this linkage is some measure of teacher performance. See this for one take on why this is a bad idea. More generally, it is important to understand that at least since Horace Mann in the middle of the nineteenth century, calls for data on teacher performance — yes, it started back then — were driven by efforts to secure administrative powers over local schools. Yes, of course this was done under the guise of improving instruction, and yes, much of what went on would be rejected by modern sensibilities, but the outcome was nonetheless change in power arrangements, with a loss of power for the Boston schoolmasters. Setting standards of performance in education has historically been about control and purpose, and less about actual quality. The federal initiative to close schools, impose federal standards, dictate to states charter school policy is driven not by “data” but a profound political crisis. Data never drive, nor should “they”. The question is always one of purpose, and of course, this poses the question of who decides.

]]> By: Kevin Moore http://www.markgarrison.net/archives/572/comment-page-1#comment-16 Kevin Moore Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:36:53 +0000 http://www.markgarrison.net/archives/572#comment-16 Because I am a snarky bastard, I love this line: "I’ll add: Schools don’t need the “support” of white-man’s-burden do-gooders arrogant and callous enough to claim bad teaching and unions are the root cause of social problems, and the presence of high-scoring Yale graduates for only a couple of years is sufficient to address the criminal conditions imposed on tens of millions of families across the U.S." Bring the pain, brother. One thing I don't get is why the school board chose a blanket application. I mean, sure, they want to save money and hire cheaper teachers who come from a program with a lot of prestige -- killing two birds with one stone (cut costs, improve image); but in the long run, it would make more sense to make more fine-grained assessments of teacher performance. That is, performance evaluations on the individual level, incentives for teachers who perform well, support for teachers facing difficulties, occasional replacement of deadwood with new blood, etc. Then, too, there would need to be more fine grained assessments of student performance, too. Mind you, I say all that assuming a properly funded and equitably distributed system of education. Oh, silly me, I forgot: we fund education with mostly local tax-base revenues, so disparities inevitably arise. Then we slash federal and state funding that could have made up some of the deficits. Then we support simple solution quick fix methodologies that further dilute effectiveness (No Child Left Behind; vouchers; more testing!). I could go on. Because I am a snarky bastard, I love this line: “I’ll add: Schools don’t need the “support” of white-man’s-burden do-gooders arrogant and callous enough to claim bad teaching and unions are the root cause of social problems, and the presence of high-scoring Yale graduates for only a couple of years is sufficient to address the criminal conditions imposed on tens of millions of families across the U.S.” Bring the pain, brother.

One thing I don’t get is why the school board chose a blanket application. I mean, sure, they want to save money and hire cheaper teachers who come from a program with a lot of prestige — killing two birds with one stone (cut costs, improve image); but in the long run, it would make more sense to make more fine-grained assessments of teacher performance. That is, performance evaluations on the individual level, incentives for teachers who perform well, support for teachers facing difficulties, occasional replacement of deadwood with new blood, etc. Then, too, there would need to be more fine grained assessments of student performance, too.

Mind you, I say all that assuming a properly funded and equitably distributed system of education. Oh, silly me, I forgot: we fund education with mostly local tax-base revenues, so disparities inevitably arise. Then we slash federal and state funding that could have made up some of the deficits. Then we support simple solution quick fix methodologies that further dilute effectiveness (No Child Left Behind; vouchers; more testing!).

I could go on.

]]>