Healthy Environment, Healthy Children
  • Home
  • About Me
  • Important Resources
  • Issues
    • Seriously in what universe are we?
    • Yelling
    • On the Importance of Fathers
    • The Pandemic and safety of schools
    • Loss, development, and children
  • Opinions
    • New Page
    • The Fallacy of the Mini Approach to Parenting.
    • Mottos and men
    • Children are not Responsible for Social Change
    • Reawakening of a Teacher
    • Firearms and Children
    • Firearms and children: revisited 2022
    • Jimmy Carter's Call to Action
    • What's in a name?
    • When Bullying Happens to the Strongest
  • Bullying Ends Today: The Bullies
    • Disengaged Onlookers
    • Bully Supporters and Followers
    • Defenders and Possible Defenders
    • Bystanders
    • The Role of Parents
    • Power, Control & Bullying
    • I deserved it
    • Bullying and the Hierarchy of Needs
    • The end of bullying and the 6 Core Strengths
  • Bully/Victim Questionnaire
    • Frequency of Bullying
    • Personal Stories of Bullying

Gates, Obama and Duncan as education experts

10/26/2009

11 Comments

 
Response to the article featured on MSN Education featuring Microsoft founder, Bill Gates:

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33469415/ns/us_news-education//



I’m not sure what brings Bill Gates to the level of education expert or how his technological advances have given him the power to hire folks who are influencing Secretary Duncan and President Obama. I am very thankful for philanthropists like Mr Gates but their influence should stop with the money they give and allow people with more child – centered and –oriented philosophies to decide where the money is spent.

 

Both of these points/concerns are validated, affirmed and bolstered by one statement by Mr Gates: “It’s no secret U.S. education system is failing.”

 

Given the vast diversity of children who come to our classrooms, the sheer number of students, the neutering of talented teachers by ridiculous and myopic standards and constant pressure by the general public and outspoken billionaires to go higher up the NAEP ladder over Slovokia on science tests; I believe the American educational system surpasses what one might expect it to do. 

 

We have millions of children living in poverty who come to school without food in their bellies or even look forward to food in their bellies when they get home at night. They walk through violent, dirty, decrepit neighborhoods where getting home safely is the toughest test they will mother works two or sometimes three jobs. Is this the same in many countries? No. In some countries, children walk through the rubble of American forces’ and insurgents’ bombs. In some, fathers are in battle, dead or just leave. In some, there is no formal schooling and in others schooling is for the males only and religion-based. Furthermore, some countries have abject poverty Americans can only imagine in their worst dreams. But I think the United States may be one of the few western countries where ALL of those factors influence a large group of children. For example, do some children in large, urban environments face these challenges? Hmmm…





1)      Children walk through rubble?                     Yes

                    

2)      Children of single parents?                            Yes

3)      Children have unequal education?                 Yes

4)      Children live in sub-par 
       socioeconomic
 conditions?                            Yes

 

Any program, like No Child Left Behind (NCLB), that uses carrots and sticks as the incentive for – as the article says – cooperation with the program, should realize its strategy as well-worn and ineffective. We all need to realize that every city, every school, every classroom and every child, are not the same and one set of practices or standards or even incentives will be effective or necessary for every school. Examples of children who are empathetic and giving make the newspaper every so often and ought to be an example for Gates, President Obama and Secretary Duncan; children know that there are people in their world who need more to help them get along. Take the example and give to the schools and communities who actually need it - not the ones who can afford to pay a professional grant writer.

The fact that the administration is using money to get schools to do what they want is neither helpful nor ethical. Take the lead of children and give money to schools that need it based on a few, very simple characteristics: 1) they are low performing, 2) they are surrounded by poverty, unemployment and strife and, 3) teachers there work twice as hard for two-thirds the salary.


 

Low Performing schools.

This label should be determined by assessments made by the teachers and staff of the school. We don’t need to compare children in Brooklyn with children in San Francisco – we need to compare each child’s performance with their previous performance. Every assessment authority will tell you that comparing pre-assessment scores with summative assessment scores is the only way to measure real progress; using normative scores to determine a child’s performance or worse yet, their intelligence, is unethical and ineffective. Without the stick of punishment, we might have less teachers and principals cheating.

 

Unemployment, poverty and strife.

In my opinion, these are the three horsemen of the apocalypse. Lack of opportunity for uneducated, untrained school dropouts who start families and live in poverty with very little chance of their children having the ability to leave the world of poverty and then both generations fall into strife, anger, frustration, crime and violence are what will cause the United States to fall short of any goal to advance in the international test standings. We fix that by using Gates, Obama and Duncan’s billions to create job training and jobs so that parents (single or not) can provide a healthy start for children. Communities will not be scarred by violence because disillusionment will subside and people will be working (not everyone but EVERYONE isn’t the problem). When we have put most of the members of a working community into jobs, we can begin to bring back those who have left the fold because of their anger and frustration at being excluded from the American Dream. When communities are lifted from unemployment, poverty and strife – children’s performance will improve in the schools.

 

Teachers who work twice as hard for two-thirds the salary.

Teacher merit pay is the most short-sighted, ineffective program the Obama administration could possibly devise in their Race to the Top incentive program . BUT, if school physical plants are improved, the surrounding communities are improved and the lives of the people in those communities are improved – teachers will be able to focus on academics and student performance will increase. It’s true. That’s what will happen. Let’s try it and if I am wrong, at least the communities, community members and schools will be improved. But to connect teacher merit pay to student performance on national standardized tests is just ridiculous. I believe 98% of teachers work very, very hard – well, maybe 90% - but it is a challenging lifestyle so I will give the benefit of the doubt. But I am POSITIVE the work and effort necessary to be successful and mentally fit in some of America’s urban, poverty-stricken neighborhoods push the limits of even the best intentioned person (and there are myriad books to read that can attest to this, see: any of Rene Esquith’s books, Teacher Man, Kozol books). Research studying who gets hired by the most difficult schools in the country suggest that it is often the lesser qualified/talented of the new teachers. Whether or not they start out as the most talented – I believe they are among the heroes in our society. I say this mostly because, like police officers and firefighters, when others are running away from the danger, urban teachers are moving toward it. Anyway, merit pay for teachers in schools that hardly need ANY incentive to succeed and perform well on tests is inherently unequal and unethical because the challenges are not the same or even on the same level.

Dear President Obama, Secretary Duncan and Bill Gates…

First, give money to the schools that actually need it and ignore the cries for equality by parents and teachers who know very well that their schools don’t really need it.


Second, leave teachers alone. They know their students and they know how to get their students to perform. If you want to give teachers something to improve their skills – just give the money to them or pay for the training in various pedagogical areas. No incentives, no bribes, no threats, just goodwill contributions to the skills of teachers working with our future.

Third, improve the communities and the lives of community members with your billions of dollars. This will improve children’s performance in school. I promise. Just try it!

Fourth, improve school’s physical plants. I see so many schools that are run down, overgrown and falling apart. Would President Obama be happy and work hard in a White House that looks shabby? How about Mr. Duncan’s office or Mr. Gates’ office or Microsoft offices? I will bet they all look pretty nice and new. 

Fifth, do all of this because it is in the best interest of our children and consequently, our future.  Don’t do it because schools will do what you tell them to do, or they will use MS Office in their school computer labs or because people will remember you as the “Education President.” Do it because with the power you have been given, you accept the responsibility of providing for those less fortunate.
11 Comments

Teachers as bullies

10/8/2009

5 Comments

 
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215997

What if the people you should turn to for help against bullies, ARE the bullies? That's the dilemma facing the young man in the featured article from Newsweek magazine. This brings me to Chapter 5 of my own book-in-process, Golden Nuggets: Ten (or so) things to remember in creating a positive learning environment for children,  it is entitled, "Children are people first, children second and students third." 

In our efforts to guide children in their development, parents, teachers and caregivers often forget that the target of their efforts is a person unto themselves and should be approached as if they are speaking to another adult - not in the same language, but with the same caution and tact used to re-direct a person who can tell them no. Instead, parents and teachers often use force (physical and non-physical), cajoling or manipulation to get obedience.

I have personally heard parents call their children dumb, stupid and "bad;" I have heard teachers compare children to one another and their behavior (for example, "why can't you act more like _______?", putting names on the chalkboard or keeping kids in for recess as punishment); these approaches are inappropriate for one simple reason - one wouldn't use those strategies in dealing with another adult, probably because it wouldn't be very effective. For example, as a college professor, if I did say to a male student that his appreciation for Einstein was related to his "affection for older men"  I would expect to be bounced out the door on my rear end! Whether or not the student is gay, which according to this student he is not, it is an inappropriate comment just as I wouldnt embarrass a female student by saying she has an affection for older men. A joke stops becoming a joke when it is hurtful; and, by definition, when a person with power (teacher) makes comments or jokes like this to someone without or with less power (student), it becomes bullying.

In addition, right or wrong, if that same male teacher made a similar comment to an ordinary joe at Hooters, he would probably eat a fist or at least get into a chestbumping match to prove their masculinity. If the female teacher made that same comment to that same joe, I am sure it would be followed by a retort that alluded to the targets ability to "show her he is a man." In other words, these teachers wouldnt make jokes like these or use these words to a stranger or even to probably MOST of the people in their lives - but it came very easily to them in the classroom setting.  Why is that? Because the teachers COULD say those things without retort by the student? I would be too shocked to reply on the spot. Because they THOUGHT they were being funny? Maybe they should re-evaluate their areas of humor - in this current social environment, being gay has negative consequences - so being wrongly "outed" leaves the person relatively defenseless because he isnt gay so he shouldnt have to dispel the rumor and even if he was, its no ones business so shouldnt have to respond to them.

Gay students, especially male students, represent one of the largest groups of people tormented in high schools. Middle school can be difficult also, as can college but the diversity in college may prevent it from happening on a grand scale but one can imagine it happening among certain "cliques" in college. A male's sexuality can still be an issue in workplaces, just think "dont ask dont tell" policies; but these relationships are different than that of teacher & student.

Teachers can make or break a child's day with a simple cross word or with a smile, hug or handshake. So many teachers I know, and my own study (available via a link on this site, by request or Amazon.com) bore this out, view their classrooms as a haven from the violence, despair and challenges of life.  Teachers are given, and proudly accept, the responsibility of creating a safe, open, accepting environment for all of our children and when that trust is broken - it can be irreparably damaged. This young man had to change schools, stall his academic pursuits and may possibly feel apprehensive about opening up in a classroom discussion for fear of a negative response. That undermines an effective learning environment and definitely has long lasting ill effects on his own learning process.

I encourage all teachers, parents and caregivers to evaluate their own biases and preconceived notions so they can provide a warm, accepting positive learning environment for their children. Short of analyzing and reflecting upon one's own feelings about, for example, homosexuality, I encourage teachers, parents and caregivers to accept the differences in our children's personalities and realize they are not small copies of you - they develop their own likes and dislikes and should be treated with the same level of respect with which you would like to be treated.
5 Comments

Street Smarts

10/3/2009

3 Comments

 
In the news recently is the story of the Honors student in Chicago who was beaten to death by a group or gang of people involved in an unrelated-to-him fight. This incident connects to me in a few ways: 1) I abhor violence - especially among children; 2) the condition of inner city/urban environments as positive environments for learning and development for children is abysmal; 3) this is an incident that highlights one of the characteristics of peer victimization (bullying) – it very often occurs when young people are on their way home from, or to, school and finally, 4) it brings up the idea of “street smarts” and that’s going to be the emphasis in this note.

Alfie Kohn wrote a book entitled, What does it mean to be educated? I sat today, pondering the same thing. What does it mean to be educated? In the suburbs and in the media, being educated means being equipped with a high school diploma, then a Bachelor’s degree and in the case of about 1 – 20 percent of the population, according to the federal government’s, State of Education report, a graduate degree. Everyone I knew in my youth had college as a goal, everyone; not just the white kids but everyone. That has changed.

 John Ogbu, James Banks, Sonia Nieto and a few others I have read, suggest that going to college for many young people in the urban/inner city environment (black, white, latino, etc.) isn’t even a reality for them so preparation, visualization and anticipation aren’t part of their future aspirations. It isn’t about the color of their skin it is about their income and the promise of a good education for them. Martin Luther King Jr., in the year, and especially in the months, before his assassination, focused his efforts on those people living in poverty. Ruby Payne also collected information and research about people living in low socioeconomic communities that illustrated that people living in poverty have a different cultural foundation based on cooperation and relationships. For them it isn’t about attaining a “formal” education, it is more or less needs based and living day-to-day. The education that comes from living in an environment where relationships are important, survival is important and knowing how to turn public assistance like food stamps into cash gives one an advantage in the current system. This education could be referred to as, “street smarts.”

 How do I define street smarts?  Sheesh, I imagine it’s difficult so let’s look at current resources. After perusing several sources, street smarts means having an informal, shrewd and cunning knowledge of survival skills in an urban, poverty stricken environment. Interesting definition; there was an associated article asking the question whether or not new MBAs (business administration graduate students) need more street smarts. Do some CEOs already have the street smarts to make it big because some of the same shrewd and cunning skills necessary to survive the streets also make one a good business person? Transactional relationships, an “eye” beyond your current situation, how to read people and a shrewdness to your social interactions may have led to people like Russell Simmons, P. Diddy, Jermaine Dupri, Jay-Z and a few other CEOs-of-color who grew up poor but have reached a level of financial and “power” security they probably didn’t think they could attain when they were struggling. They did it without college degrees although some of them may have gotten a degree later on in their careers. 

What does it mean to be educated when people who have degrees, even graduate degrees, are jobless after being told all throughout their lives that education leads to opportunities? Does education necessarily mean employment? The best candidate seems to be the street smart college graduate. That might mean incorporating the skills developed as one becomes street smart (for example, being more sensitive to “reading” other people) into one’s formal preparation for whatever career they pursue.  This would mean adjusting curriculum to facilitate progress based on the learner’s previous knowledge – even if that knowledge isn’t necessarily valued by the traditional curriculum.  That was the idea behind the Oakland School District’s decision to label black vernacular as a dialect of Standard English, or for Stanford University to develop a culturally biased test called “The Chitlin Test” that asked test takers such minority-focused questions like, “how long do you have to boil collared greens before they are done cooking?”  

This type of strategy is student-centered and focuses on the experiences of the individual student and by incorporating that culturally specific knowledge into the standard curriculum required by schools, each child in your class can meet the expectations of a district and, Heaven forbid, a national standard.  I suppose my conclusion is that being street smart, or not being street smart, should not prevent a child from attaining whatever goals they have in mind. Creative, child-centered teachers can nurture the idea of college in young people because the young person recognizes that the teacher values the knowledge the learner has and supports the idea that this street smart “intelligence” as Gardner might suggest, can improve rather than hinder the aspirations of success in children living in poverty, children of color and traditionally disenfranchised populations.

But this young man did everything right. He earned honors in high school, avoided gangs and gang entanglements; by all accounts (including law enforcement) he was a good son and young man. He even used the street smarts he developed; reportedly, he knew there had been trouble the morning of his death and went home a different way. The melee followed him. They preyed on him; an entire group preyed on him and beat him to death. All of his street smarts didn’t help him; sadly no one helped him until it was too late. 

It would be very easy to focus on all the good things he did, find, arrest and banish the teens who did this but, and all the bully research is moving in this direction, we have to deal with the lack of positive conflict skills in the perpetrators and show them that there is a different way for their lives to proceed. A friend who studies gifted and talented youth once said to me that some of these bullies and disruptors in class are equipped with a gift in leadership.  However, many teachers are apprehensive about arming these students with responsibilities or are worried that they will be rewarding bad behavior. But it isn’t bad behavior – it is good behavior trying desperately to fit in with a classroom environment that doesn’t seem to value their gifts. I’m not saying these brutal teenagers who killed this young man are gifted, or misunderstood – what I AM saying is that there are systemic issues underneath this behavior and they have been ignored, misdiagnosed and under-resourced for so long that their street smarts have become their first tool for dealing with conflict, “disrespect” or anger. This means strike first, deal with the consequences later – and those consequences aren’t even envisioned, just like the possibilities of college.

I guess what I am trying to say is, hope doesn’t just come to you – hope is fostered, nurtured and passed along by individuals. I don’t know how to fix all the problem(s) of Chicago and many other cities like it – but I know that I can pass on hope to those around me who are listening; Sara has nurtured hope in me and I try to continue to build it within myself – I encourage you to nurture hope in those you love.


 
3 Comments

    Author

    My passion in life is raising awareness of the factors contributing to the toxic environment in which children live.

    Archives

    October 2013
    April 2012
    February 2012
    February 2011
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009

    Categories

    All
    Assessment
    Bandura
    Behaviorism
    Bullies
    Bully
    Bullying
    Chicago
    Children
    Childrens Defense Fund
    Civil
    Collaboration
    Cooperation And Competition
    Dap
    Dissociation
    Dr. King
    Duncan
    Education
    Effects
    Equity
    Erikson
    Gates Education
    Grade Levels
    Grades
    High School
    Hitting
    Hope
    King
    Law
    Luther
    Martin
    Mike
    National Academic Standards
    Obama
    Oregon
    Parents
    Play
    Poverty
    Psychosocial Development
    Race To The Top
    Reading
    Resiliency
    Respect
    Role Model
    Snap
    Social
    Social Learning Theory
    Spanking
    Standards
    Tacoma
    Tanf
    Target
    Teacher Merit Pay
    Teachers
    Testing
    Therapy
    Tyson

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.