Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






American Catch


Truthdig Bazaar
Acts of War: Iraq and Afghanistan in Seven Plays

Acts of War: Iraq and Afghanistan in Seven Plays

By Karen Malpede (Editor); Michael Messina (Editor); Bob Shuman (Editor); Chris Hedges (Foreword)

more items

 
Report

Liberating the Schoolhouse

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 30, 2008
Baldwin Park High School
bpbraves.net

Baldwin Park High School

By Wellford Wilms

(Page 2)

But some teachers didn’t like being asked to make decisions they were not used to making. Despite their complaints about administrators holding all the power, many teachers actually wanted a principal who would make decisions for them. Taking on more responsibility meant more work. Some teachers interpreted Infante’s collaborative strategy as laziness. During a two-day meeting at a Disneyland hotel, one of the teachers took me aside and said, “Julie just wants us to do things she doesn’t want to do.” I asked Infante what she thought about what the teacher had said. She was undeterred: “Telling them what to do would have been easy for me, but it would have given them an ‘out.’ I wanted them to work at it, to try out some ideas.” 

Infante steadily shifted an increasing number of decisions to the teachers and sat quietly at meetings while they worked them out. At a meeting with the UCLA coaches to get their perspective, Otterness told me, “Before long she was just sitting back like a fly on the wall. She didn’t say ‘yes’ and she didn’t say ‘no.’ She would participate in the discussions but she would leave the decisions to the teachers.” The other UCLA coach, Barbara Linsley, like Otterness a former teacher, remembered how Infante set the tone: “If Julie had anything that she wanted to share, she was the last one on the list, so the teachers got their stuff done first.” 

Infante also hired two new assistant principals who shared her philosophy and they became part of the team. Over a cup of coffee in the faculty lounge, a teacher said of the new administrators: “They’re very supportive and they believe that change comes from the bottom up, not the top down. They jump right in and share the workload.” But Infante knew that jumping in and sharing their workload would not help the teachers take more control. Angela Salazar, one of the new administrators—a self-described “take charge” person—was frustrated because, with the whole group involved, making decisions was “slow as molasses.” She told me soon after being hired, “I jump in feet first. ... I want to just take over ... and say ‘This is how we do it.’ Someone has to take charge and boom, boom, boom, let’s go.” 

Salazar said she offered to help the leadership team do “mundane stuff, just to take it off their hands. I have an office job, but they have to teach. I’d ask, ‘Do you want me to type that up for you? Would that help ...?’ I typed all the survey questions because it’s got to get done. I don’t mind. I like this stuff.” But what Salazar had not yet fully grasped was that the teachers had to take care of the details themselves if they were to truly take ownership. Infante guided Salazar, much as she had been guided by her former principal, pushing her ahead to work with the leadership team and then pulling her back when she felt Salazar was intruding on the teachers’ learning. Infante’s steady guidance began to pay off. Later in an interview Salazar acknowledged: “I think that Julie was right, that it’s got to come from the teachers.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Over the next nine months the UCLA coaches continued to guide the leadership team toward taking more control, though it was not always a straight path. Using offsite retreats and common planning time, they read from books such as Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point.” and Alfie Cohen’s “The Schools Our Children Deserve” and discussed the implications. “We wanted to help the teachers expand their visions and think metaphorically about leadership,” said Otterness. “But an obstacle was that teachers confused leadership with administratorship. They thought leadership was deciding where to store the computers, or where to put the white boards for the summer.” 

Teachers had been conditioned to look to authorities for answers, and when it came to making serious decisions, shedding this expectation was difficult for many of them. One teacher recalled, “At first, there was a big empowerment question. Everyone looked to the principal for answers to almost every question they had. They’d ask, ‘Can we do it?’ She’d say, ‘Go do it. It’s your thing!’ ” As the teachers began to realize that decisions they would make would affect their colleagues, they began to worry. As one said, “What should we do? We don’t want to make mistakes” that could make things more difficult for the other teachers. Another teacher conceded, “I had trepidation when we began. But once we got past the basic learning about how to run meetings and started to apply it, setting priorities for the school began to make sense to me and it felt good.”

The issue of improving student discipline was an early test for the leadership team. It was a difficult transition for the teachers to realize that they already had the knowledge and authority to solve this problem. They looked to the UCLA coaches for direction but the coaches refused to help. “When we started discussing how to solve the discipline problem, it was just the beginning of expanding their professional roles,” explained Infante. “The teachers couldn’t see that the steps had to come from their own experience. They just couldn’t see it.” 

Despite Infante’s reticence with her teachers, she was otherwise outspoken, a quality that got her into trouble with the board. At issue was the hiring of a new athletic coach in 2004. Infante had established a selection panel of teachers, parents and students that recommended a candidate to her. She took the name to the superintendent expecting the decision to be approved. But an influential school board member wasn’t happy with the choice, so the superintendent told her to hire someone the board member wanted. According to Bill Sterling, a veteran teacher and member of the leadership team, “Everybody knew it was a political job done by the board.” Infante had been put in an untenable spot because going back on the panel’s recommendation would undermine her position with parents, teachers and students. It wasn’t the first time Infante had run into what she called unprofessional behavior from the board, but she describes this act as the “final straw.” 

Infante applied for a job in another district, where she became a finalist. I recall how upset the teachers became at an offsite meeting when Infante told them she might leave, citing the long commute as a reason. Despite the teachers’ dismay and anger at what felt like a betrayal, she never divulged the real reason, preferring to keep it between herself and the superintendent. The superintendent offered to talk to the parents for her, but Infante refused because it would look like she wasn’t running the school. “I’ll take the heat,” Infante said she told the superintendent. “I’m respectful of the chain of command, and I’d never disrespect him in front of people,” said Infante, “but behind closed doors we had a candid conversation.” However, this independent, though respectful, behavior didn’t project the kind of “team player” image the board wanted, and it cost Infante support in the long run. It is ironic that she would be faulted for being a poor team player given that, as events would show, her very strength was in teamwork. She decided to stay on at Baldwin Park High School.

In early 2004, a year into the project, Sterling and I surveyed the entire faculty in the school cafeteria to find out how they felt about the changes. The results were not encouraging. Most of the teachers still blamed everyone but themselves for the school’s poor performance. Ninety percent said that most of their colleagues were “high-quality” teachers, but less than half (46 percent) agreed that administrators (including Infante) were effective.  Ninety-two percent of the teachers blamed the students, saying they lacked motivation, and 84 percent faulted the parents as being uninvolved in their children’s education. More than two-thirds of the teachers (69 percent) thought the school’s greatest weakness was the students’ lack of discipline.

Infante and the leadership team took the results seriously, making the improvement of student discipline their top priority. The leadership team formed a subcommittee to better define the problem and consider solutions. Their new confidence in solving problems caught Infante’s attention. She knew that if the teachers succeeded in devising a new discipline policy, it would represent real progress. “Right away I came back and talked with my two administrators in charge of discipline and told them, ‘You better schedule a meeting with the leadership team as soon as they call because they’ve done their homework. They’ve put a lot of time into it and they’re expecting to work together,’ ” Infante said. The leadership team and the administrators met a number of times, exchanged e-mails, and “before you knew it we were all on the same page developing a new discipline policy. It was definitely a trust-builder,” said Infante. 

The burst of confidence among the teachers was palpable. One said, “Finally we have an administrator who says, ‘OK, go ahead.’ And basically that was extending us the trust that, ‘you are professionals, you can handle something besides unlocking a door and walking out.’ And teachers rose to the occasion, doing what needed to be done. If this continues we could probably reform the whole school.” 

As their confidence grew, the leadership team began organizing their colleagues to visit classrooms at Baldwin Park High School (called “walkthroughs” in education parlance) to observe how students were learning and to start a schoolwide conversation about how to improve.5  It was a dramatic change from how walkthroughs are usually conducted, by administrators who focus their attention on teachers. Under pressure from No Child Left Behind, districts are increasingly mandating that administrators spend more time in classrooms. But Sterling, who left teaching in 2007 to become an administrator in another district, told me over lunch that when walkthroughs are used as means of control they undermine teachers’ professionalism. “Spending time in the classroom is the new mantra for every administrator in California. Our association tells us that we have to spend 50 percent of our time observing classrooms. The word comes from on high to do it. ... There is no training and the exercises are meaningless. No records are kept, and nothing happens with data. Administrators just do it to keep an eye on the teachers, to make sure they’re teaching.” 

Infante and the UCLA coaches had something very different in mind. By insisting that teachers organize and conduct the walkthroughs themselves, they would ultimately have to take responsibility for the quality of teaching. Infante knew that she could have developed a rubric about the elements of good teaching, but she also knew that the teachers should create it themselves if their knowledge was to be used and if they were to become committed to the result. She accompanied the teachers on the first walkthroughs to show support, but, she said, “Then I let them do it for themselves. I purposely backed off though I’d go to the debriefings afterward to hear what they were learning. But they were running the show.” Her strategy paid off. The teachers started their own “Critical Friends” lunch and after-school meetings, a reference to a popular way of structuring dialogue to discuss teaching and the work students were doing. Infante noted that the seemingly insignificant step of showing teachers how to run meetings was now informing the teachers’ leadership of the school.

Linsley recalled that while teachers were doing classroom walkthroughs, they were thinking about student discipline. The UCLA coaches gave the leadership team members readings on new ways of teaching and nudged the conversation to help them see the connections between teaching and student discipline. According to Linsley, “They began to see that there was more than one way to tackle the discipline issue. They began to see that it was tied to the quality of teaching.” Infante recalls, “At first they didn’t see the connection; they just thought a teacher had to stand up with these rules and the problem would go away.” She continued: “Then they saw the solution was being good instructors who engaged their students actively in their learning. They came up with that. It was one of those ‘aha’ moments for me, ‘Ah, they got it!’ They realized that if you taught bell to bell with engaging lessons, the discipline issue takes care of itself.” 

As the leadership team expanded its attention to other issues—improving the instruction of students who spoke little or no English, encouraging parents to become engaged in their children’s education, and aligning the curriculum with statewide tests—a new consciousness of the school as a community began to emerge. “I think it was when the teachers realized that each of them had a role to play in helping children learn English,” said Otterness. “That was the breakthrough. Previously everyone had been isolated. They’d refer the large number of children with language problems to a single teacher who had been given the job. They blamed others, saying ‘it’s not my problem, it’s yours.’ But there came a recognition that the whole school was involved, administrators and teachers together, and it became ‘it’s our problem.’ ” 

Another issue was how to better align what was being taught with statewide standards and the annual test. A group of teachers came up with an idea to develop a bank of standards-based questions for world history and U.S. history. They would administer a final exam and the students would be asked to review their own performance. Together they would discover the teaching techniques that helped students learn best. The teachers acknowledged that the idea of using tests to diagnose what students learned was not a huge innovation, but the process of engaging the students in an evaluation of their own performance was a radical shift from past practice, in which students were treated as passive recipients of information. 

As the teachers began to make decisions together, they began to develop a new sense of authority in the classroom. One teacher told me in a hallway conversation, “This kind of thinking is totally different from what we’ve ever done!” The teachers knew that the district would demand changes because students’ test performance was so bad, and now, with control of the process, they figured out a solution they thought would work. With their new authority, teachers began to model the same collaborative behavior that had been established between themselves and the administrators. Another teacher who joined us, added, “Instead of teachers complaining, ‘Oh we have to create this test,’ they’re already doing it and they’re excited. They want to do it.”


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By BPHS Student, December 19, 2008 at 6:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Silvas, wow.
You are one scary dude.

Report this

By A.R., May 22, 2008 at 12:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Be sure to check out this link regarding former board president Sergio Corona

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_9346485

Report this

By john, May 18, 2008 at 3:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When admin adopts a “my way or the highway” mindset (which, let’s be honest, is the case in 9 of 10 school districts, or, 99 of 100?), the teachers’ incentive for creativity or innovation drops like a lead balloon.  Over the years I’ve known many teachers, and after 10 to 15 years most of them were disillusioned with their honorable calling.

A story…

In the mid 1990s, I worked in a High School Special Ed class taught by the most amazing teacher I’ve ever met, Mr. Smith.

Every day Mr. Smith, who oddly enough addressed all the students with the title Mister or Miss, put on an educational performance that ranged from Ancient Rome to World War II.  Much to everyone’s astonishment THE KIDS ACTUALLY LEARNED THE MATERIAL!  We are talking about teens who did not read at the third grade level. 

(Note:  The school psychologist estimated 70% of the students were truly mentally retarded, and 30% were gang bangers who never learned how to read or do basic math, and the school district did not know where else to put them, so in they went to Special Ed). 

Mr. Smith told the students on day one that they had the potential for greatness and he would not settle for anything less.  The students quickly lived up to that expectation.

The gang bangers seldom behaved in a disruptive manner in Mr. Smith’s class.  The focus of the class was to learn and shine, so why waste time with crude outbursts as they did in other classes?

Mr. Smith was an effective facilitator of learning because he mandated it for himself through his own power of creativity and vision, not because the superintendent wrote up some lofty sounding window dressing Mission Statement. 

A deeper issue is how do we inspire future teachers to follow Mr. Smith’s example of excellence?  Also, how do we create a school environment conducive to this sort of transformation?

I doubt these issues will be addressed because there is too much distrust and animosity between teachers & administrators.  The kids pay the price for the gridlock.

In this discussion of top down vs. bottom up, not once have I heard anyone mention how parents fit in the equation.

The revolution we need, on the deepest level, must come from the parents- each household making a decision that learning (not simply school) is a priority and a great adventure from the moment that little toddler can say “goo goo, ga ga”.

If one is raised in the sort of environment in which one is encouraged to learn, grow, and explore (with basic training & support in study skills, and doing homework), then K - 12 is no big deal. 

That newly minted high school graduate would be very capable to chart their course from there, be it training for a skilled trade, or going to college, or joining the army, or hitchhiking across the country writing poetry & planting wildflowers.

Parents are the primary teachers, schoolteachers augment what the parents have created.  Too many parents view the public school system as free babysitting and expect the schools to do all the work of educating their kids, and then have the gall to complain when the schools “fail”.

We can teach our kids to see themselves as capable & bright “achievers”.  We can teach our kids that learning is actually exciting, and a way of life, not just 8 to 3 at school until they are 18 years old.

If most parents did this sort of training from age 2, imagine how a 5 year old would be poised for success in Kindergarten and beyond. From what I’ve seen, most parents do not do this crucial prep work.

Good luck trying to turn the tide on a 13 year old with seven years of bad grades, who is starting to experiment with booze and cutting class in his Freshman year.  I am amazed at parents who have teens with years of bad grades, and say “Doh, how did this happen?”.

If one has a healthy & capable child with a history of Ds and Fs, that shame belongs on the parents who permitted it to happen.  So, to all of you Homer Simpsons out there, stop being bad parents!

Report this

By Babara Kebre, May 15, 2008 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My initial response to this article is “sour grapes”.  UCLA lost a lucrative contract and their “team” was, essentially, fired.  The reporter used anonymous sources or those who were positively involved in the process.  I did not see one source identified that was not a participant in the “Leadership” of the school.  Did the rank and file really think this was a great change?

As a teacher and counselor for BPUSD for the past 33 years, I agree there has been major shifts in policy about every five years.  But this is not just BPUSD.  One reason “change” doesn’t work in education is that those in power don’t give it time to work through a generation of children.  You can’t have systemic change in four years, then change again, without a cost in productivity and student success.

Mrs. Infante was not the first, and I am sure she will not be the last, to advocate for shared decision making in education.  And, just as it has not been maintained as a district model in the past, it will not be maintained as a school model in the future.  And why should it?  As long as the state and federal governments hold administrators personally responsible for the success of the school, administrators are going to do what it takes to document their leadership and cover their backsides.  Any of us would do the same thing if our professional life was what was at stake.

I have worked with Mr. Cruz on several occasions and have been impressed with his dedication to student success and willingness to “think outside of the box” when dealing with students’ academic needs.

The best thing this article did was to bring to light the need for systemic change in public education—again—using other peoples reearch.  Focusing on one school principal may have givent he article a more personal approach, but, overall, I would like to have seen more balanced reporting.

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, May 9, 2008 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

Actually, there IS a “theatrical” element to this whole affair;  and it happens to be one that David Simon engaged in the fourth season of THE WIRE.  This was the plot line that involve a team of social scientists getting a grant to run an experiment at an inner city Baltimore public school by focusing on those kids who were most socially maladjusted.  Details aside, the punch line is that the social scientists got to deliver a paper at their professional meeting and nothing changed in the Baltimore classrooms.

Note that I still hold to my original thesis:  This is still a cautionary tale about “the triumph of domination of signification,” as I put it in my original blog post:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/05/cautionary-tale-about-dimension-of.html

However,the “teller of the tale” would have us believe that all the elements of domination can be traced back to Los Angeles politics.  What is omitted are the elements of domination that involve academic projects always in desperate need of funding.

I really should have had the presence of mind to follow the hyperlink on Wilms’ name BEFORE writing anything about his analysis.  The profile at the other end of the link is up front about his UCLA connection;  and, as the note at the end of the text indicates, he got to write his paper.  Where “the bad” gravitates into “the ugly” is in those agencies that fund the abstract world of academics to design and implement experiments in real-world classrooms.  Simon’s point was that the academics never have any stake in such projects other than their publication record.  My wife was involved in a summer project (which involved bringing students into a professional research laboratory, rather than going into a classroom);  and since then she has been very skeptical about allowing “academic theorists” into her classroom!

Report this

By Chris Silvas, May 8, 2008 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Not to one up Cheryl Steans and her fine response to the “article”, but let me add some additional “substance” for those who are interested:

THE GOOD:
The UCLA Managment Team that was brought in to advise on the process brought up-to-date strategy that is now common language among PLC schools in how to form collective leadership and a responsability to results in a school. The practices that were advocated included research-proven teaching strategy a la Marzano, clear emphasis on data driven instruction along with peer observation, and norms for group interaction to arrive at consensus that are significant “best practices” for schools that are trying to serve all students.

THE BAD:
At no time was there any real investment, not by the principal or the UCLA facilitators, to understand why these “best practices” never got “deep implementation” in our school. The fact is that, as Cheryl Stearns commented, the team spent a lot of its time in off-campus “reflection” that never quite trickled down to the school. This led to the very common perception among “non members” of the leadership team that this hand-picked group was “Julie’s Group” led by “Lecturers” from some other planet. Julie had many strengths, but never really established any credibility on our campus. She very openly took credit for work that was not her own, and this lack of “cred” doomed any real buy in to the practices. The entire project “orbited” our school, never really making a landing on the surface where our students reside. This is not a knock on the staff that participated on the team, many of whom did tremendous work that should be commended. But to assert that this was some pilgrimage to the “Promised Land” as the “article” would assert is just plain fantasy.

THE UGLY:
It is probably more interesting to tell a story of epic proportions; how “team leadership” is snuffed out by the iron hand of “authoritarian reactionaries” both on our campus and at our district. It probably stirs more emotion and debate to portray the efforts of a new principal as “heroic” in face of a challenged community, then tragically smitten down by merciless “villians” who fear “creativity”. That would be a compelling story indeed - if it were true. The brutal truth is that it never happened like that. It was a worthy effort that never quite surfaced as a “silver bullet” to the problems of our school - nor should that have been expected. Without any real credibility,however, the leadership team along with the administrator that supported it became increasingly isolated and less relevant over time. This is what caused the chain of events that led to the ouster of our former principal—nothing more.

For the record, the leadership team still exists and its role will continue to evolve as conditions on the ground dictate.

Im sorry the truth isnt more “theatrical” or interesting…

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, May 8, 2008 at 10:07 am Link to this comment

Thank you for providing a more substantive account than Silvas did;  I have acknowledged your position as a comment to my own analysis of this article at:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/05/cautionary-tale-about-dimension-of.html?showComment=1210266180000#c7042809303657110729

Report this

By Cheryl W. Stearns, May 7, 2008 at 9:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I had to read Wilms article about Baldwin Park High School 3 times before I could get past the anger I felt at his unfair characterizations of the faculty, staff and students.  I have been a counselor at BP for 19 years.  Before that I was a teacher on the Braves campus for 13 years so I feel that I am enough of an expert to comment on what Mr. Wilms had to say.

His description of our former principal is incredibly slanted and one-sided.  Yes Ms. Infante brought about some changes to our campus and our API score did go up.  But it didn’t go up simply because she came in and “empowered” the teachers and students.  There are a multitude of factors that go into computing a school"s API, not just test scores.  And many people worked behind the scenes to make sure that we were properly placed in a group where our true growth could be measured and would be representative of what our students have accomplished over the years.  When all was said and done, Ms. Infante took most of the credit for accomplishing the “amazing feat” of improving our score by 95 points in one school year.  It was a team effort.  But to hear it described to others, our accomplishment sounded more like a “one-woman” success story.  Believe me when I say that no one shed a tear when she left.

Working in Baldwin Park for over 30 years has never been easy, but it has been immensely rewarding.  We have very high EL and transient populations to work with.  It is not uncommon for some students to check in and out of Baldwin Park High School 2 or 3 times in one school year.  And we are being criticized for not showing greater success?  We are successful every day when we keep our students in school despite the many distractions they have to deal with on a daily basis.

Mr. Wilms criticism of “the new kid”, our Principal Luis Cruz is also way off the mark.  I noticed that the quotes he used from teachers were anonymous.  Shame on those teachers for not stepping forward and identifying themselves.  We all know that every school has its “shining stars” as well as it “weakest links”.  If Mr. Cruz is guilty of anything, it is his passion for education and his immense desire to see all of the students succeed.  If he steps on a few toes by criticizing those “weakest links” then he should also be applauded for trying to help those individuals improve their skills or encouraging them to “perhaps find a different career where they can be more successful”.

Chris Silvas was right when he said that the article smacked of sour grapes.  Who wouldn’t be upset over losing a lucrative $400,000 contract.  But to slam all of the dedicated educators at Baldwin Park High because we felt the money could better be used for programs providing direct services to students rather than “Weekend Getaways” to discuss who knows what, was very unfair.  I was part of that Leadership team so I know what I am talking about.  I resigned after participating for 2 years because I felt my time would be better used to work with the students, rather than being off campus and out of touch for days at a time.

I’m just sorry that Mr. Wilms included quotes from a former teacher who never even worked with Mr. Cruz and got his information about what is happening on our campus from a secondary source.  Mr. Wilms, along with the other UCLA team leaders spoke with me on many occasions and asked for my opinion about various things they observed on campus.  I don’t see any of my comments quoted in the article.  Perhaps this is because I did not give answers that supported his claims and criticisms about Baldwin Park.

I am very disappointed that this article was written from such a negative point of view.  Many very dedicated and hard-working educators were hurt by this article - and to what end?  Maybe to help Julie Infante find another job?  Who knows what sometimes motivates people’s actions.

Report this

By Kiwi, May 5, 2008 at 9:45 pm Link to this comment

Very Good points Non Credo. The Basis of the Libertarians approach is that you cannot choose to have a government-run school system or health system etc.
When Paolo says “In a free society (as advocated by libertarians), parents could choose to send their children to private schools of their choice, or to educate them on their own.” This pre-supposes that parents will want to educate their children. Isnt compulsory education the State involved in bringing up children? What if the parents dont want to? What if they want to keep their older children at home to babysit younger ones while they work? Should children not have basic protections? Should a parent
be able to sell their young children for sex ? Doesnt the fact we have laws saying “This is wrong” interfere with freedom? Laws to protect children are a basic tenet our modern society.

I guess the best protection from Libertarian Idealogy though is Democracy. In NZ the Libertarianz Party got 1% of the vote in the last election. Next election later this year they will probably get the same.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 5, 2008 at 12:13 am Link to this comment

As it is Stephen Smoliar is so much more “forgiving” than I. I call SOUR GRAPES.  You seem to be advocating the “we run the show around here” BS.  So, enlighten us.  What the hell was “wrong” with progressive change, addressing the issues and making changes?  I’m ALL EARS!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 4, 2008 at 10:59 pm Link to this comment

Re: Stephen Smoliar

I got side-tracked, but I wanted to comment on your point:

“This freed them from the bad judgments of an enfeebled power elite, and the results should put our entire education profession to shame.”

In this, I fear you are too generous.  Hopefully you don’t mind my edit. “and the results “DO PUT OUR ENTIRE EDUCATIONAL PROFESSION TO SHAME” (my emphasis, of course)  Further, for one of the RICHEST NATIONS IN THE WORLD, that is a NATIONAL TRAGEDY AND AN INCRIMINATION OF THE POWER ELITE.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 4, 2008 at 10:41 pm Link to this comment

Re: Stephen Smoliar, May 4

Don’t get me wrong, it isn’t that I think this was a bad pilot program.  This particular program was not the teacher’s idea or program.  And I would add that it isn’t that I think her foolish or inept or anything of that sort.  Just that she was, to be more specific “shocked” that we could digest so much so quickly.  I thought the program was GREAT, in fact it has been somewhat of a “guiding light” shall we say in my personal perspective.

I realized then, and it has held true since, that if they require this or that, that in fact that is the tip of the iceberg and an overview at best of what people will do, can actually do or do DO, if given the opportunity.

And I think this carries over to the principal in the article and her perspective.  I do feel that she was genuine and understood the task, but moreso accomplished it with flying colors only to be marginalized later. And as to the “why did cast her aside”, I feel we may agree.

I am familiar with your association to “Frederick Taylor’s PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT” although it has been a while and when you elaborated regarding it, it was one of those “oh yeah” moments.  I tend to be a voracious reader and used to have a penchant for reading BS written in “sophisticated form”.  LOL.  Great fun.

My point was more one of, why.  Why was she so shocked?  I have theories, one of which is because she herself was part of the “other” ideology.  Not because she MEANT to be, but because that was what had been instilled, through many lengthy courses, mostly likely a childhood riddled with it, colleagues filled with it and so on.

Would I have been able to conceptualize this anyway?  Maybe.  It’s hard to say, since as it is, I’m a voracious reader.  I can qualify that it DEFINITELY set in stone this truth. That people can, will, and do DO what they aspire to do if GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY OR LATITUDE to do so.  The “proof is in the pudding” as they say.  Hang tough.

Report this

By ZZ, May 4, 2008 at 9:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This article is not saying “the state” needs to be left out of the educational system. It does, rather, point out the importance of giving teachers the freedom to respond creatively to their school’s particular conditions (those persistent and those ever changing).  It’s the teachers who are immersed in the culture and needs of their particular environment, and, therefore, they should be relied upon to respond creatively to those needs.  The imposition of external authority/solutions by school’s administrators can thwart or truncate a teachers responsiveness. 


.

Report this

By kathleen shrum, May 4, 2008 at 6:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why do you need a voucher?  Obviously you are wealthy enough to send your child to a private school, the one near me is only 12oo.00 a month. Go for it, also Afghanistan has no central government, bet you would be real happy there, no taxes either, head on out, bet there school system is primo too and no vouchers required. You whiny people make me sick, why dont you ask corporate Amercia to pick up the tab? God knows they dont pay very much in taxes, Buffet says his janitor pays more in tax than he does.

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, May 4, 2008 at 7:59 am Link to this comment

It sounds to me as if, when you were in the fourth grade, you had a teacher who realized that she had a diverse gathering of individuals in her classroom;  and she decided to manage her classroom activities informed by that observation.  The reason I keep citing Callahan (May 2) is that Tayloristic thinking has made her teaching practices a very distant statistical outlier.  The public education system still labors under the premise that the classroom is a production line not substantively different from the one that used to put out the Model T Ford.  For all the insights of educational psychology (not to mention the abundance of empowering tools available through digital technology), educational authorities maintain their dominance by holding firm to what Callahan calls “the cult of efficiency.”  Other democratic countries with more effective public education systems recognized that such thinking was not just inapplicable but downright dangerous.  This freed them from the bad judgments of an enfeebled power elite, and the results should put our entire education profession to shame.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 3, 2008 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment

Re: Paolo

I myself have homeschooled, however it isn’t the only way or necessarily the best way, it depends.  There are many ways to do things well and I agree we should have that freedom but I also support, irregardless of the avenue we choose with our own children, public education.

When I was very young (4th grade), the school I attended allowed those who were able, as a pilot reading program to advance at our own pace.  I will admit that we (my group) were the better readers.  All the “seatwork” worksheets were available to us and we read our reading assignments and “filled out” the worksheets “on our own” with the teacher overseeing our work.  Straight away we finished our level book AND all the “seatwork” associated with it.

The teacher then had us read all the books available in the classroom or otherwise, for which multiple copies were available.  We did that also, higher level readers, science books, social studies books and the like.  There was still a quarter of the year left and we had nothing to do, much to the teacher’s amazement.

The reason I bring this up is that 1)I don’t feel she should have been amazed, that is STILL disconcerting to me as I see it as an incredible underestimation of our true abilities. 2)EVERYONE should have had the option, since only then would we know what everyone/anyone COULD have accomplished.  3) Because I believe ALL should be able to advance at their level of understanding and not be “held back” because of misunderstanding and 4) Because the very next year it was back to old grind.

There is no doubt in my mind that public education CAN do it, I was publicly educated.  The problem lies with ignorance, misconceptions, lack of progressive thought, authoritarianism and truth (as in reality check).

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 3, 2008 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment

My last post was directed at Non Credo, May 2

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 3, 2008 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment

I agree.  By pooling our resources we COULD do an excellent job if we quit tying the hands of those who would take the opportunity.  Instead “we”(rather the nincompoops in charge) insist on an authoritarian model.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, May 3, 2008 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

In a free society (as advocated by libertarians), parents could choose to send their children to private schools of their choice, or to educate them on their own.

Private schools could educate children in any number of ways: Jewish, Muslim, Christian, non-sectarian, atheist—you name it. Since there is no such thing as one “correct” form of education (unless you are a state-worshipper), this diversity (real, actual “diversity”) of education would produce a diversity of intellectual views among the population.

This is a good thing. In a free society, no one group would be able to assert dominance, politically, over any other group. If different groups disagreed on some points, they would have to either compromise or shake hands and agree to disagree. No one could force their views down the throats of the entire population (as has been done, historically, by Protestants forcing their view of things on unwilling Catholics and Native Americans, to cite one example).

But many parents would choose to teach their children at home. I have done this myself, and have seen my children go on to college and excel academically. Teaching children at home, in the early grades up through high school, is really not that difficult, especially today, when there are literally hundreds of fine home-education computer programs (as well as paper-and-ink programs) that provide education that is far superior to what children get in the public schools.

Thus, in a free society, you would have a huge choice of ways to educate your child, rather than the one, monolithic, one-size-fits-all “choice” you now have with government schools. Diversity really is a good thing; if there is a public entity that discourages diversity, it is the public schools.

Report this

By Reginald Cavendish, May 3, 2008 at 12:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And when your children graduate from McDonald’s High School, with their burger flipping certificates in hand (redeemable for one free Happy Meal) I do hope they thank you for taking such a stand on their behalf. 

If you think the private sector is appropriate for education, you must also agree that the police, fire, military and health service providers should operate on a for-profit basis.  Sadly, as corporate America continues to take over hapless minds like yours, it won’t be too long before you get your wish and your Happy Meal mentality will reign for a thousand years.

Report this

By Reginald Cavendish, May 2, 2008 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Paolo,

I’ve read your “libertarian” viewpoint several times on this blog.  I’ve also noticed a pattern in your criticism of public schools.  You repeat that they should not exist.  You also speak of how you once held a teaching position.  It seems to be a fixation of yours.  It’s becoming apparent that, contrary to the reason you post for leaving your teaching position, perhaps you were let go for incompetence, impropriety or possibly something more heinous.  In any case, your bitterness is palpable.  If you couldn’t fulfill your life as a teacher, you may have another calling.  Why don’t you try becoming a coffee barista.  That’s a fully privatized industry.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, May 2, 2008 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment

The premise behind your statement is that the State possesses some sort of mystic wisdom far superior to that of the rest of us mortals. Frankly, this sort of State-worship really gives me the creeps.

Now, if you as an individual want to introduce what you think is a great form of education, nothing in a free society would prevent you from doing so. You would just have to convince me and others that your system is good.

Governments don’t have to do that. They just use force to collect taxes to finance their insane schemes. Since they are virtually unanswerable in their power, the weirdest, looniest ideas get traction and stay in place for decades. See “Look-Say” or “Whole Language” or any other variant of the insane way we teach reading for examples.

I stand by my initial point that the upbringing of children is far too important to be left to the State.

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, May 2, 2008 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment

If there are errors of fact in Wilms’ piece, then I, for one, would like to hear of them, either in this comment space or, if you prefer, in the comment space for my reflection on the article at:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/05/cautionary-tale-about-dimension-of.html

My guess is that my own thesis is still valid;  but, if I have fallen victim to faulty data, then I want to know about it!

Report this

By Chris Silvas, May 2, 2008 at 8:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is ridiculus to pass this “article” off as scholarly writing. I am a teacher at BPHS and I can assure you that very little of what has been asserted is true. We teach the students to be able to distinguish between “fact” and “opinion”, and clearly this is a skill that still needs to be mastered by even more educated people.

Anyone can “cherry pick” subjects to interview and build a case for about any cause or assertion that they see fit. There is no love loss for the previous administrator of our school, nor for the management team from her alma mater (and incidentally my own).

Perhaps they are simply upset that the nearly $400,000 contract they received had not been renewed because a school has many more priorities than simply paying theorists to do what only practitioners can do.

Our students are in need of action and not platitudes, and the rise in test scores has been accompanied by a rising acheivement gap and decreasing graduation rate.  This is a difficult problem that we have to work on, but WE will work on it because WE are invested in these kids.

By no means does my point represent a scientfic response, but I can only address the comments in this “article” on its own terms.

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, May 2, 2008 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

Your analysis emphasizes the significance of Raymond Callahan’s book, EDUCATION AND THE CULT OF EFFICIENCY, and indicates that you may have gotten the message better than Wilms!  Callahan’s thesis is that public education became obsessed with Frederick Taylor’s PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT early and the twentieth century and has never shaken loose from that obsession.  The problem is that Taylor was dealing with people operating machines on production lines, rather than people whose job consists primarily of interacting with other people (whether they are salespersons or teachers).  Callahan’s point was that in classroolms the Taylor approach breaks down with disastrous results.  You used the breakdown of Taylorism applied to sales to demonstrate Callahan’s argument.  Needless to say, the current Federal policy towards education involves a “total immersion” in Taylorism, which is more likely to drown our educational institutions than “save” them (religious metaphor baldly intentional)!

Report this

By TDoff, May 2, 2008 at 4:33 am Link to this comment

The logical extension of the ‘Bottom Up’ method of administering the schools would be to pass the leadership mantle to the students.

If we were to start next year, in pre-schools, letting toddlers set their agendas, as that class moved through the school system, grade by grade, they would gradually remove the biggest barrier to inadequate education: The incompetent teachers.

About the time they reached the 8th to 9th grade level, and the educational administers realized what was going on, and tried to reassert their authority over the whole system, the kids would beat the crap out of them, and voila! We’d have a fully liberated school system, with no teachers (or teacher’s unions) and no stuffy old-fart ‘administrators’ to screw things up.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 1, 2008 at 10:33 pm Link to this comment

“The district administrators’ lack of understanding of what had happened at the school, and the unspoken assumption that hierarchical control was the only leadership model, demonstrated the extent to which top-level district decision-makers were prisoners of this single idea.”

As to Wellford Wilms assertion above, I disagree.  I think they knew exactly what they were doing. It is common in business to play a deceitful game with people, somewhat like propaganda or marketing consumerism. It is especially true in SALES.  Here’s how the game is played.

Mgt. tells the sales people that they will earn bonuses, after they hit a certain amount of sales.  They then let employees attain the bonus once, then.. they move the goalposts, so that NOW to get the SAME bonus one needs to hit a higher amount.  So the sales people work even harder (you see who’s winning here already don’t you).

Then Mgt. does it again, at this point there is talk among the employees and everyone starts to “see where this is going”. When that happens, they raise it one more time, to an unattainable amount BUT, they NOW add… that EVERYONE MUST sell “at least” the second or third amount, since now management is quite certain that it can be done, OR there’s the possibility of losing your job.

It’s a trick.  A deceitful little trick to see what could be done if one were working extremely hard, which in the beginning was fine since the employees were compensated for the extra effort.  Later, the extra effort is the MANDATE, WITHOUT COMPENSATION.

Since the whole “business model” is the rhetoric of the day, these administrators were just trying to gauge the employees’ ability.  When those numbers “were in” they relegated the principal to some non-position because it was NEVER their intent to empower teachers they just wanted to see how much work you could “get out of ‘em”.

Later they fired this principal.  They didn’t want her “empowerment” or “integrity” problem around I’m sure.  Somewhat like the ol’ “that’s not how we do it here” BS.  Five will get you ten that these teachers will now be REQUIRED to put in the extra effort or face dings on their records or possibly lose their jobs if those test scores come up short.

The administrators can now relax.  If those scores come up short, it’s not their ass is it?  (eventually sure, but they’ll easily be able to blame the teachers, just look at the numbers) All they need to do is bring the hammer down on the lowest totem pole employees, it’s how capitalists do business by conniving, cheating and lying.  They are using the “business model” here, that’s why they fired this teacher.  Hey, she might think she’s DESERVES something for saving their asses.

THERE IS NO INTEGRITY, EMPOWERMENT OR MORALITY IN THE BUSINESS MODEL.  NONE.

Report this

By optipessi-mist, May 1, 2008 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

School Vouchers is the American voter saying the public school system is broken and has been for years.  I want my school tax money so that I can go to a private school of my choosing for my chilren. Take your public school system and shove it.

Report this

By Kiwi, May 1, 2008 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

A centralized, mandatory, government-run, taxpayer financed system can work and does in many countries. Many manage to find the balance between this and local management decisions that fit the local community. Such a system allows for alternative schools as well. Montessori is one of them. I agree it is an excellent system.
But as for the upbringing of children being too important to be left to the State. The Upbringing of Children is far too important not to include the State!!

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, May 1, 2008 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

I am one of those who quit teaching, well before my fifth year in the profession. As a libertarian, I came to understand—very quickly—what the problems are, and why they are so intractable. All attempts to “fix” the schools, while maintaining a top-down, centralized, mandatory, government-run, taxpayer financed system, are doomed to failure. Schools should be small, locally run, and allowed to pursue excellence in whatever way they choose. That is, schools should be part of a free society.

The Montessori Method, by any reasonable measure a far superior way of teaching children (or rather, allowing them to learn), will not be touched by public schools: Montessori allows too much freedom to both teachers and students. You can always rely on government entities to pull the iron fist out when they detect too much freedom.

In the final analysis, public schools should not exist at all. The upbringing of children is far too important to be left to the state.

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, May 1, 2008 at 10:36 am Link to this comment

A lengthy article requires lengthy consideration, too long for a comment but available at:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/05/cautionary-tale-about-dimension-of.html

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.