Student Teaching, Stress, and The Daily Show (Sidwell Style)

So far, my student teaching experience has gone very well. All the students are nice, my cooperating teacher is extremely helpful, and I have even been allowed to already take the lead in teaching a couple of assignments. Really, there hasn't been anything negative to report about the experience so far. However, I can already tell that my schedule for the next few months is going to exhaust me.

There is the student teaching itself, which is basically a full time job I don't get paid for (I actually have to pay my college extra for tuition because it is extra credit hours). Then I have 3 classes to take 2 nights a week: one is a graduate class, and one is a class where I am putting together different pieces of my teaching portfolio every week. I also have to keep my part-time job because I am poor, and have bills to pay (I mainly work on the weekends, when I do have time off from student teaching). Finally, I have a wedding to plan with my fiance, who I am already seeing a lot less of due to my busy schedule (and we live together). Free-time, and regular sleeping hours will be rare, if existent at all.

Fortunately, there are things to help me with the stress. The Daily Show is one of them. Here is a link to a couple of web clips to an education related story: the Obama girl's first day of school.

Craig Cunningham on Arne Duncan

He gives a generally positive, and well written review of Obama's Pick for SOE. He even gives some implications about what this means (maybe) for education in this country. Cunningham even predicts the next Chicago School Chief:

"1. NCLB will be drastically restructured to focus on supports for improvement rather than negative consequences for failure.

2. Opponents of charter schools have lost a huge battle. Their expansion will continue dramatically.

3. Urban school districts will receive special attention from Washington.

4. Washington will now begin to push a longer school day and longer school year, and the public will be gently pressured to force the unions to accept this without getting higher pay.

5. Funding for educational research will no longer be tied to ideological criteria such as "evidence-based" practices. Rather, research will be judged in terms of its likely benefit to generalized issues of educational practice.

6. The bowling alley in the White House will be replaced with a Basketball Court.

7. Barbara Eason-Watkins, who has been the quiet but effective and resolute Chief Education Officer of the Chicago Public Schools for the past 6 years, will become Chicago Schools Chief. Barbara (who was also my boss for about 3 months before she took her current position) is smart, friendly, tireless, effective, and has deep experience at all levels of the system. Expect Eason-Watkins to make news within the next few years, most likely by saying things that no white man could say in that position. She may shake things up a bit in Chicago (which would be quite welcome)."

Time's Person of the Year: Barack Obama

As if it would be anybody else (click here for article).

A Good Case for the Arne Duncan Pick

The Washington Post gives their support to Arne Duncan. The first two paragraphs essentially summarize my own ideas for why I am supportive of the Duncan pick, as of right now:

"IT WAS WIDELY expected that President-elect Barack Obama's choice of an education secretary would finally reveal which of the warring approaches to school reform he favors. Instead, his selection of Chicago schools chief Arne Duncan cheered both the disrupters and the incrementalists of education change. That could be a good sign for America's schools -- if Mr. Duncan is able to unite the two sides in support of meaningful improvements.

"In announcing his nomination of Mr. Duncan, Mr. Obama rejected the notion that there must be an either-or approach to making schools better. Both sides, he said, have good ideas and intentions, and he held out Mr. Duncan as someone not beholden to one ideology but capable of creating a new vision for the country's education system."

I have generally fallen on the Linda Darling-Hammond side of the Education Secretary debate (as opposed to the Michelle Rhee side). However, the more I think about it, the more I like the Arne Duncan pick because he really is a decent consensus candidate. He shows that people who aren't gung-ho reformistas in the school reform debate can still work to reform our public schools. Duncan has a lot to work on, so don't expect any miracles. But at the end of the day, Duncan is a high quality choice who seems very capable of handling the job.

Weingarten on Duncan

AFT's President likes Obama's Secretary of Education pick. I suppose that is a good sign.

Arne Duncan: A Safe Choice

There couldn't be a better time to start writing on my blog after a week off from posting (sorry, I've been kind of busy). We now know who the next Secretary of Education is going to be: Chicago School Chief Arne Duncan.

And based on everything I have read about him so far, his choice seems to be about two things. First, he is a politically safe choice because he will most likely not upset either side of the current education reform debate. On the one hand, he is appealing to education "reformistas" because he is a big city school chancellor with a history of trying to reform schools, just like his old boss Paul Vallas (who is now in charge of New Orleans Public Schools) Also, his name isn't Linda Darling-Hammond.

On the other hand, he is at least partially appealing to the more traditional/teacher-friendly (for lack of a better term) side of the debate because he isn't as controversial as a Joel Klein or Michelle Rhee. In addition, Teacher Unions don't hate his guts. AFT head Randi Weingarten even says that Duncan "reaches out (to unions) to do things in a collaborative way."

The second thing his choice indicates is that, simply, Duncan is someone Obama can personally trust. He is from Hyde Park in Chicago, has worked with Obama over the years, and has even played basketball with him (in fact, Duncan apparently has a fairly nice basketball career). Just like other Presidents will pick people for their cabinets from back home (including our present Education Secretary), Obama has done the same thing.

I do have some concerns. While he is clearly a safe pick, is that all he is? Is the fact that he didn't pick either a Linda-Darling Hammond or a Michelle Rhee a sign that Obama wants to reach out to both sides of the education reform debate? Or is it just a sign that Obama wants a politically safe pick because education won't be that high of a priority? Plus, as good of a job as Duncan has done in Chicago, will that actually transfer over to a national level? Duncan was in charge of just one school district (even though it is a huge one), but will now be in charge of thousands of school districts in 50 states. Needles to say, it is harder to micromanage things.

Also, it would be nice to have an Education Secretary who has actually taught inside a class. Oh, well.

I personally would have preferred a Linda-Darling Hammond, but I am not opposed to Duncan as a choice. Maybe he is exactly what our education system needs. Let's give the guy a chance and see what he can do.

Picture comes from This Week in Education.

President-Elect Obama on Meet The Press

Isn't it encouraging to have a President that will value science again? Another education quote from the interview:

“There is an incredible bully pulpit to be used when it comes to, for example, education: Yes, we're going to have an education policy; yes, we're going to be putting more money into school construction. But ultimately we want to talk about parents reading to their kids. We want to invite kids from local schools into the White House.”

Congresswoman hangs up on Obama and Rahm Emanuel

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) thought is was prank from a Miami Radio DJ, but no, it was really Obama and Emanuel. Apparently that sort of thing happens all the time, and some politicians actually fall for it:

Reassuring

Some have doubted that we will be getting out of Iraq within 16 months, as Obama promised, since he has announced his national security team (particularly keeping on Robert Gates). But Matthew Yglesias lays out some convincing points to those critics:

"The reality, obviously, is that the SOFA and the security agreement have made 2007-vintage disagreements about timeframes for withdrawal essentially irrelevant. Between an American government that wants to set an end to our involvement in Iraq and an Iraqi government that wants to set an end to our involvement in Iraq, it really does become a question of hammering out the logistics and framing the politics. The strategic debate about the wisdom of things like John McCain’s plans for a hundred years of occupation is over."

It also helps that Gates supports a withdrawal:




Now putting troops from Iraq into Afghanistan is another matter. I haven't quite made up my mind on that one yet.

The Obamas are Sending their Daughters to Sidwell Friends

It is a private Quaker School that Chelsea Clinton attended, as well as Albert Gore III, and Joe Biden's Grandchildren.

On the one hand, it would be nice to see a major political figure send their children to a public school, or at least a charter school. On the other hand, it is unfair that such a decision is so open to public scrutiny, and we must all understand that the Obamas have to do what is in the best interest of their daughters. Besides, it is not like the DC public schools offers the greatest education environment.

An Elementary School in New York renames itself after Obama

I like Obama too, but this is a bit premature.

You Can Be President Too

I promise that right after Inauguration Day, I will stop glowing about Obama's victory. But I had to post this cartoon. This election was a great sign of progress in America. It comes from No Teachers Left Behind.

What is so wrong about Traiditional Teacher Training Programs?

A few days back, I posted on a story from Eduwonk having to deal with "traditional teaching programs" vs. newer, alternative teaching programs. The program I am currently in probably falls under that first category. I am not against the alternative programs, but the more blogs and education websites I read, it seems the more hostility I find towards programs like mine. The attitude seems to be, "alternative programs like Teach for America are the wave of the future, and more traditional programs need to get out of the way".

Then Monday, Alexander Russo (my favorite education blogger), posted about Linda Darling-Hammond as a potential appointment to Education Secretary by Obama. Russo's post is as much about Obama as it is about Darling-Hammond. But he warns that if Darling-Hammond is Obama's nominee, there could be a backlash against her by those in the education community who believe in major reforms in education. The reason for such a backlash? She was one of the earliest critics of Teach For America:

"The possibility of Darling-Hammond being named Secretary has emerged as an especially worrisome possibility among a small but vocal group of younger, reform-minded advocates who supported Obama because he seemed reform-minded on education issues like charter schools, performance pay, and accountability. These reformistas seem to perceive Darling-Hammond as a touchy-feely anti-accountability figure who will destroy any chances that Obama will follow through on any of these initiatives."

Russo goes onto explain:

"Yes, Darling-Hammond is an ed school professor who talks in nuanced, academic terms--not scripted talking points (see her debate here). Yes, she was among the first and most prominent critics of Teach For America--and still favors a more intensive, residency-based approach to training new teachers.

But she also has authored a recent study that acknowledged T.F.A. teachers were in some ways better than traditional teachers. And she has helped start several charter schools in California. Darling-Hammond says there's no real daylight between her positions and Obama's policy proposals, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence to contradict that claim.

So what's going on then? Part of it is just a knee-jerk response against someone who dared criticize T.F.A., the reformistas' most cherished accomplishment to date. Another part of it may be the desire for a younger, fresher name picked from their own ranks--D.C. superintendent Michelle Rhee, or New Leaders founder Jon Schnur."

I have been trying to figure out the genesis of this movement among different education wonks that alternative programs are better than traditional teaching colleges. I know I am a somewhat of a novice when it comes to education policy, so will someone please explain this to me? Have I waisted the past 2 1/2 years in my college program? Would I have been better off to have gone into Teach For America? Somehow, I don't think so.


Reading about this continuing debate reminded me of an editorial I read a couple of years ago when I first started attending my program, and I wanted to learn more about education policy. It is a column from George Will entitled "Ed Schools vs Education" (my apologies for this being in Word Format. It was the only way I could look it up on the internet as it is no longer easily accessible from the Newsweek archives). He begins the article with the following:


"The surest, quickest way to add quality to primary and secondary education would be addition by subtraction: Close all the schools of education."


Will believed this was because education schools are only focused on espousing progressive political beliefs, not teaching teachers how to teach. He does a good job at pointing out SOME extreme examples of teacher colleges where such activities take place. But he seems to have no problem branding ALL teacher's colleges as following this phenomena. While I can only really talk about my program, I think he is generalizing, to say the least.

By what Mr. Will and these "reformistas" appear to say, you would think that teachers all across the country are being taught to have the students sit in circles, give each other hugs, sing "Kum Bi Ya", and finger paint. True, things such as trying to promote change and fairness are themes that I have learned about in some of my classes (as if those are evil things to promote). But by and large, the overwhelming majority of what is taught in my classes are highly technical skills and techniques that are needed to teach in a variety of areas in the pubic schools (contrary to what some think, these do include the importance of discipline and accountability). We are taught how to be professional teachers, and we take it seriously. If you disagree, please speak up. I am ready to win that debate.

Even more speculation

The AP is reporting a list of potential list of cabinet positions, including Education Secretary. Their potential nominees includes Colin Powell (which I have already mentioned in another post), Former North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt, Arne Duncan (the chief executive of Chicago public schools), and Inez Tenenbaum (the former superintended of South Carolina public schools).

I will throw out my own three names: Linda Darling-Hammond, Michael Johnston, and Christopher Edley. All three were education advisers to Obama during the primaries. Whenever one looks at potential appointments to anything, always check out the advisers.

Inspiration for a New Generation

Here is another article on the reaction to Obama's victory in a largely African-American school, this time in Brooklyn. It discuses the reaction of 6th graders at the Eagle Academy of Young Men, which was founded by the group One Hundred Black Men of New York City. Here is an expert:

"[Academy President David C. Banks] said Mr. Obama’s victory offered minority children a new sense of possibility.

'It raises a level of hope for young men of color who I think have been besieged by a culture of low expectations,' he said in an interview. 'Part of our model at One Hundred Black Men is ‘Boys will be what they see,’ and it’s hard for kids to dream about things they’ve never seen.'"

Dumbest Generation Ever?

I know one of the major beliefs today in education is that we are raising the dumbest, most uninformed generation in the history of our country. But according to USA Today, this is not the case:

"As the results of the election sank in Wednesday, teachers in high school classrooms across the USA found themselves debriefing a group of young people who are, by all accounts, more informed and civic-minded than any in recent memory. They came of age after 9/11, after all."

I understand the temptation to question the intelligence of youth, as so many have done throughout history. But this article gives me hope, and reassures my skepticism of "the dumbest generation". Another part of the article I like follows the quote above:

"But they're also less obsessed with race than their parents and more cynical about the world and the ability of government to change it for the better."

The matter of their color-blindness is a positive, but also not that surprising. As far as being more cynical goes, this might actually be a positive. Being a civic-minded generation is good, but doesn't necessarily translate into civic-action. Cynicism, by-itself, isn't good because it might only lead to apathy. But civic-mindedness AND cynicism together can (and I believe will) translate into a passion to try to change things in our government, and the world, "for the better". Perhaps this is what we saw with this past election. Here is another part of the article that helps explain the high voter turnout among youth, which voted overwhelmingly for Obama:

"For much of the past 20 years, school districts nationwide have pushed parents to hold off registering their children for kindergarten until they're 6 years old. In many cases, schools even prohibit parents from enrolling 5-year-olds if their birthday falls late in the year.

As a result, perhaps as many as half of the nation's 3.2 million high school seniors on Nov. 4 were eligible to vote, making discussions in high school classes more urgent."

Think twice before branding out nation's youth as stupid or ignorant about what is going on in the world. It seems they have already started to make their mark.

The Day after in D.C. Public Schools

The Washington Post writes on the different discussions going on in classrooms all over the Washington, D.C. area about the election. I am sure these types of discussions were going on in classrooms all over the country, but it is significant in D.C. because of it's large African-American population, not to mention it's the nation's capitol. A quote from one student:

"Today, I said the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time in three years," said Grant Durando, 17, an Obama supporter and a student in Justin Brown's Advanced Placement government class at Potomac Falls High. "I said it because I'm proud -- that our country can go from killing millions of people on slave ships to one that puts a black man in office. I think I meant it for the first time, too."

The picture comes from the same article.

An Open Letter to Obama on Education

This was written by Patrick Riccards of Educommunications Blog. It is insightful and highly detailed.

A Memorable Image from Election Night

I have not exactly been a fan of Jesse Jackson these past few years when it comes to racial issues and publicity, and I think he did not do Obama any favors during the campaign. However, this image of him at the rally in Chicago last night is something that really got to me, as it probably got to many Americans. Remember, Jackson grew up in the segregated South, he was active in the Civil Rights movement, and he was there when MLK was killed. Like many African Americans, he has gone from living in segregation to having an African American elected to the White House. Yes Reverend, this is really happening.

The picture comes from The Guardian.

Election Reaction

Picture from Huffington Post

Well, to say that I am feeling ecstatic is an understatement. Truth be told, I am probably more proud than I have ever been to be an American today.

History has been made on a number of fronts. First, of course, is the fact that he have elected an African-American to the White House. It isn't just a major racial barrier that has been torn down, but it is a sign of hope to young children from culturally diverse backgrounds all over America that they can become anything they want to. Second, it is a sign that our reputation and popularity around the world will be restored to what it was before the Bush administration. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it is a bold move away from the past eight years and a sign that, yes, we are ready for change. I realize that what I am about to say is contradictory to my agnostic beliefs but:

God Bless America!

Now, as Jed Bartlett would say, "What's Next?"