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)."

Scoping Out the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

I was surfing the web today, and I came across the some good stories and features on the Post-Dispatch website.

First, I found out there was an education blog at their website called The Grade. The following is a description of their blog:

"An STLtoday.com blog on education in the St. Louis region, with a focus on efforts to improve student performance. Our team of reporters tackle a broad range of topics from school testing and charter schools, to discipline and bullying, while providing a forum discussion by parents, educators and readers."

Check out their most recent post on the Arne Duncan appointment.

Then it appears that the Missouri Supreme Court is letting the state keep control of the St. Louis Public School System.:

"The decision backs the appointment of a three-member governing board that has run Missouri’s largest school district since it lost accreditation in June 2007. Members of the elected school board have remained in office, but are mostly powerless."

Finally, the AP announced the 2008 All American Team in football. 1st Team picks consist of Jeremy Maclin (All Purpose Player) and Chase Cauffman (Tight End). We also have a third team player with Sean Witherspoon (Linebacker). GO TIGERS!!!

D.C. Reacts to Rhee's Time Cover

Some people are happy about Rhee's Time cover because it brings more support and attention to reforming the D.C. Public School (and reforming the nation's education system in general). Other's aren't fans. A quote from the by Cathy Reilly, head of the Senior High Alliance of Parents, Principals and Educators from the Washington Post:

"I don't know what she was thinking," Reilly said. "I don't think sweeping things out is the way to go, and that way of relating to people metaphorically sends a message right down to the children."

Overall, the Post article was filled with mixed on reactions to the Time cover.

The Ball Buster

I am referring to the woman in the picture above, D.C. School Chancellor Michelle Rhee. Some might gasp at such a description, but I can't think of a more appropriate description. Michelle Rhee is a ball buster. And yes, you do need a ball buster to do the job that Ms. Rhee is trying to do. For better or worse, she is now the de facto face of education reform in this country.

Certainly, she has a tough task at hand, and no one can doubt that she needs to get tough to do it. But there is also a lot of room to worry. This part of the Time article has already given a lot of people pause, including myself:

"In many private encounters with officials, bureaucrats and even fundraisers–who have committed millions of dollars to help her reform the schools–she doesn’t smile or nod or do any of the things most people do to put others at ease. She reads her BlackBerry when people talk to her. I have seen her walk out of small meetings held for her benefit without a word of explanation. She says things most superintendents would not. “The thing that kills me about education is that it’s so touchy-feely,” she tells me one afternoon in her office. Then she raises her chin and does what I come to recognize as her standard imitation of people she doesn’t respect. Sometimes she uses this voice to imitate teachers; other times, politicians or parents. Never students. “People say, ‘Well, you know, test scores don’t take into account creativity and the love of learning,’” she says with a drippy, grating voice, lowering her eyelids halfway. Then she snaps back to herself. “I’m like, ‘You know what? I don’t give a crap.’ Don’t get me wrong. Creativity is good and whatever. But if the children don’t know how to read, I don’t care how creative you are. You’re not doing your job.”

Fair enough, but standardized tests also don't take into account the seriousness with which most students take them given there is no link between the test scores and grades. Don't even get me started with the issue of human grading of more subjective test questions. And as far as education being too "touchy-feely", students are not robots. People, especially young people, are highly emotional, and complex beings that come from numerous different backgrounds. They respond to different methods of teaching, discipline, evaluation, etc. in different ways. Don't get me wrong, there should be strong discipline, tough standards, and accountability. But it isn't so black and white.

Another concern with Rhee that myself and others have is that she may go too far in trying to shake things up. Yes, things need to be shaken up, but how much is too much? Robert Pondiscio makes a better argument than I can on this point:

"Here’s what worries me: accurate or inaccurate, fair or unfair, the increasingly confrontational, impatient, blunt, even rude public persona that’s affixing itself to the Washington, DC schools chancellor runs the risk of getting in the way of what Michelle Rhee wants to accomplish. I’ll put it bluntly: piss off enough people whose help is essential to your success, and your failure becomes inevitable, a consummation devoutly to be wished. Then for years to come, the answer to the reforms anyone proposes becomes, “Oh yes, we tried that in Washington under Michelle Rhee and you remember how that worked out.” If she fails, Michelle Rhee’s failure will not be hers alone. At worst, she runs the risk of damaging the ed reform “brand” for a generation."

Rhee kind of reminds me of another famous education reformer:

Granted, this is an exaggerated comparison, and I'm not saying that this is the way to do things. But Crazy Joe and Ms. Rhee both have more in common than people think. And without question, both are ball busters when it comes to education reform. Let us all hope that Rhee does what she needs to do to get the job done without going overboard.

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.'"

The Passing of Proposition A (Missouri)

One issue from this past election that I should probably address if the passage of Proposition A here in Missouri. For those of you who don't live in Missouri, Prop A was a ballot initiative that will:

• repeal the current individual maximum loss limit for gambling;
• prohibit any future loss limits;
• require identification to enter the gambling area only if necessary to establish that an individual is at least 21 years old;
• restrict the number of casinos to those already built or being built;
• increase the casino gambling tax from 20% to 21%;
• create a new specific education fund from gambling tax proceeds generated as a result of this measure called the "Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund";
• and require annual audits of this fund?

One might think that, since I am going into education that I would have automatically supported it. The truth of the matter was that I couldn't make up my mind. On the on hand, I am very excited that it may bring over $100 million to public school funding in Missouri. The schools will definitely need it, as they always do. But there were definitely problems that I could not overlook. For starters, the law will essentially set up a monopoly for existing casinos in the state of Missouri, and not allow other Casinos to be built on the Missouri River that might economically benefit different towns. In addition, the money raised for schools is expected to benefit more rural school districts instead of larger ones (i.e. Kansas City, St. Louis). While rural districts deserve more funding, the larger cities are just as deserving, if not more so. Let me be clear that whatever doubts I had about the proposition had nothing to do with loss-limits or the moral questions of gambling itself. I have no problem with taxing vice to benefit public schools, and if someone blows all of their money gambling, that is their own fault.

In the end, I left the Prop A part of my ballot blank because I believe that when someone truly cannot make up their mind about something in an election (as I couldn't here), their is no point in forcing yourself to take a side. I apologize to anyone who is offended by my indecisiveness. Now I kind of know what it is like to be one of those undecided voters you see on cable news panels that seem so damn clueless. I would like to think of myself as more informed than then though.

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.