How do you teach justice?

To this day, I don't know why I didn't fit in at school. I'm a fairly normal guy; I even excelled in some ways. But by the time I reached seventh grade, I was agonizingly aware that my "rep" (reputation) placed me at a very specific place in the rigid structure of the middle school social order. I wasn't at the bottom, but I was a long way from the top. Not that I wanted to be at the "top" of the pecking order; I would have preferred simply to do away with all the pecking.

So how do we do that? Is it even possible? Well, obviously it's none of the teacher's business how students treat each other outside the classroom. They have to work these things out among themselves. Kids will be kids. We can't legislate morality. What a bunch of bull!

We can, and we should, explicitly teach students not only to treat each other fairly and with respect, but also to interfere when they see others behaving inappropriately--in other words, to act as allies for those who are the targets of bullying or bigotry.

In her article "Acting for Justice," teacher Linda Christensen outlines a unit she developed for exactly this purpose. Her students read accounts of non-violent resistance from the civil rights movement and act out the part of the protesters. They analyze historic or literary situations by dividing the characters involved into four categories: ally (or intervener), victim (or target), witness (or bystander), and perpetrator. In this way, students learn to recognize consciously the roles, both active and passive, that they and their peers play in incidents of injustice.

Further, Christensen asks her students to write about their own experiences, sometimes with startling results.

I was astounded at how many students confessed to being perpetrators, victims, and witnesses, and how few acted as allies. One student offered that he was a "jackass" in middle school and regularly tormented other students. Many talked about making fun of younger, weaker students. Sometimes their abuse was physical. Few students had stories of acting as an ally. In our discussion, it was clear that students didn't feel good about their participation or their lack of intervention, but they didn't feel powerful enough to stop the racist, homophobic, or belittling behavior and comments.

By bringing these normally hidden power relationships into conscious light, and having students actively practice the role of ally, we can help them develop the compassion to treat each other well and the strength of character to intervene when they witness injustice in their everyday lives. Not only will this improve the lives of victims, it can make school a safer and happier place, and thus a better learning environment, for all students.

I encourage you to read Christensen's article. The link is:
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/15_02/Act152.shtml

the will to pay

I got a message from my dad this morning. Yesterday the people of Rhinelander, Wisconsin, passed a school referendum. Community leaders have been trying for years; previous ballot measures have been voted down; the version that finally passed is far smaller in scope and effect than earlier measures. Why?

Why did voters reject the measures presented in previous years? Why didn't they pass a more potent or far-reaching referendum this year? All together now: "MONEY"

Schools cost money; they are expensive to build and to maintain. Materials cost money; they are expensive to purchase and to replace, yet they must be replaced and updated periodically. Teachers cost money; modest though teacher salaries are, when you start to look at them in the dozens or hundreds or thousands, it really adds up. Education costs money, and the sad fact is that few communities possess the collective will to pay what it costs to give local children a good education.

A retired couple doesn't want to pay more taxes; they don't have kids in school. A bachelor doesn't want to pay more taxes; he feels he's already paying too much. A working family doesn't want to pay more taxes; they're struggling as it is.

But that retired couple will need health care and other services from this generation of school kids, and they will certainly want their providers to be well educated. That bachelor may have kids of his own some day, and he'll want them to have the best chance at success. That family hopes their kids will have a more comfortable life than they've had.

And of course, the key to all these long term needs and hopes is education, which requires adequate funding in the short term. If we want to be well cared for as we age, if we want our descendants to have a better life than we've had, if we want our society and our civilization to continue to improve, we need to muster the will to pay for education now.

"A significant factor"

A letter from the Michigan Education Association dated Dec. 7, 2009 describes the attitude of the MEA regarding Michigan's response to federal Race to the Top funding. The letter states:

"RTTT requires student growth data to be a 'significant' factor in assessing the performance of educators... Too often, this particular RTTT requirement gets translated into the notion that teacher success should be judged solely on test scores - MEA will steadfastly oppose efforts to characterize the RTTT student growth data requirements in this simplistic fashion."

So MEA wants to see legislation that actually reflects the language of RTTT with subtlety and balance, so that test scores really are just one of a number of factors taken into account in determining teacher pay. Sounds good to me; I actually wouldn't mind that, provided the 'other factors' are meaningful. My question is: what do you think the odds are of this ideal notion actually happening?

Imagine, law makers imbuing legislation with subtlety and balance to reflect the true spirit of the original intention, and bureaucrats implementing such laws reasonably and responsibly... Sounds wonderful, like a dream come true, like a fantasy. Just my opinion.

I recently installed Google Desktop so that I can actually find things on my own computer. One of the doodads (technically "gadgets," like the inspector) I added is a daily quote from my hero, Albert Einstein. The first few quotes have been nothing to rave about, but today's is an idea that I think is very important and severely under-appreciated:

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

I have conflicted feelings about the value we place on what we call patriotism because I'm not quite convinced patriotism isn't just a pretty word for nationalism. The politicians would have us believe they are completely different; patriotism is a genuine and noble impulse, not at all like the ignorant, destructive nationalism that those other countries feel... Sounds like propaganda to me.

For similar reasons, I also have very conflicted feelings about the micro-nationalism we so encourage among our students. Of course, again we don't call it that; it's "school spirit" or "home town pride." I must say, I don't feel any particular sense of pride over the town I grew up in, or for that matter the country where I was born. After all, it isn't as though being a citizen of the United States or of Rhinelander, Wisconsin, is some sort of accomplishment for me; I happened to be born to parents who lived there rather than Madrid or Benares. For that simple coincidence I feel fortunate and lucky, but not proud.

My concern over the encouragement of "school spirit" is that this kind of small scale nationalism (tribalism, selective apathy) may quietly serve as practice for the real thing. It prepares the mind for more serious business like killing people because someone tells you to, without confirming for yourself that they are truly dangerous to you or those you care about. In my view, the difference between the crazed fan in the stands screaming abuse at the opposing team and the brain-washed fanatic who picks up a rifle or straps on an explosive vest is not a difference of kind--only of degree.

testing, testing, one two

http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/LA/0855-may08/LA0855Exchanging.pdf

I just read an article about a California school that was forced by NCLB to change its English curriculum. They had been using an authentic and holistic approach, including comprehensive assessments to determine exactly what each student needed. Now they are required to use a supposedly scientific but completely generalized curriculum imposed from the outside, involving tests whose purpose is to report on the school's "performance" rather than reveal the students' needs.

Interestingly, this change was not a universal catastrophe. Reading scores among English-fluent students jumped substantially in the first two years of implementation. But here's the catch: scores among English Learners were almost completely stagnant.

Furthermore, with their jobs on the line, teachers were forced to focus on the specific skills emphasized in the new assessments (ie, teach to the test), thus compromising the individualized instruction they used previously.

So the net result of this take-over was a dramatic increase in the existing performance gap between English-fluent students and English Learners. In other words, No Child Left Behind forced this school to take about a quarter of its students, and leave them behind.