School Reformers vs Anti-reformers

I want to be careful to not appear to support the education reform movement. I truly do not yet have an educated opinion on either the positive or negative effects reform initiatives are having. I have a "feeling" derived partly from logic, experience and reading summaries from recent studies that most of the initiatives are the result of a panicked "we must do something quickly" mentality resulting in throwing a bunch of ideas against the wall hoping that some will stick. Most of the studies are inconclusive--comparison and correlations but little causation. From recent research, I don't think any of them is sticking and I don't think allocating more money or time will produce positive casual student achievement results. Which is basically the same criticism anti-reformers have with possibly a "more harm than good" emphasis. But that's not enough. If anti-reformers agree that we need to improve K-12, exactly what is their plan? As a group, who are the ant-reformers and who are their designated spokespersons? And were "they"  to put  forward proposals, would they not be considered "reforms"? Or do the anti-reformers believe that the pre-reform movement system was producing desired results and no changes were necessary?

Obstacles to K-12 Student Success

In yesterday's post, Diane Ravitch references a survey of the nation's teachers of the year http://dianeravitch.net/2015/05/20/teachers-of-the-year-say-that-family-stress-and-poverty-are-biggest-obstacles/). She quotes Lyndsey Layton in the Washington Post:

The greatest barriers to school success for K-12 students have little to do with anything that goes on in the classroom, according to the nation’s top teachers: It is family stress, followed by poverty, and learning and psychological problems.

So the problem isn't due to "low expectations, bad teachers, teachers’ unions, tenure, seniority, and the need for competition and accountability" (Diane's words). Duh! Any of us who had even the vaguest interest in education knew or suspected this all along. Ah, but Arnie and the states won't go down easily. They will argue that, of course, teachers will deflect blame.

At the end of her blog, Diane asks, "Why don’t Congress and the states listen to the experts?" Yes, why? Members of the medical profession are not held accountable for increasing incidents of cancer, maiming automobile accidents, gunshots wounds, and on and on. Yet we listen to them when they site causes. Lawyers (those practicing law, not those writing laws) are not held accountable for the crime rate, yet we respect their opinions. We don't blame architects for the destruction caused by an earthquake, yet we listen to their ideas on building earthquake resistant structures. Go ahead, name another profession whose members' opinions are at least respected. OK, maybe law enforcement recently but I can't think of another.

The Results Are In

There are good and bad urban public charter schools and there and good and bad urban non-charter public schools. Profound! Regardless of reformer and transformer interventions, mayoral control or not, instant principal and teacher schools, more money spent per student, more hours in the classroom, more alternative schools, less bureaucracy, less union interference, more firings and hirings, more school turn-arounds, closures and openings, and Arne's focus on whatever works, the infamous "gap" continues, whether it be the real or perceived gap between the our and other advanced nations' students or between disadvantaged and not-so-disadvantaged students. (Phew, and I surely missed a number of experiments.) So what does work? Why exactly do some school do better than others that yields significantly better test scores? And should the goal be to equalize test scores, assuming that tests are good indicators of student potential as well as current knowledge? Probably not. I think the best we can do is strive to equalize education opportunity.

It could be that the "no excuses" schools are on the right path but I'm also inclined to agree with the notion that "our urban public schools cannot succeed unless health, social and employment issues are addressed" (see Jay Mathews blog). My thoughts on this turn to basic management theory. Many will remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid: simply put, the majority of lower level needs (physiological, safety, love/belonging and esteem) must be met before one can experience self-actualization. As Deborah Meier observed

The poor kids I encountered in kindergarten were accustomed to more formal and more consistent good manners—whether it was in how to address their elders or how to dress properly. They were less whiney and more obedient.

Children of the poor get tougher and more unmannerly slowly. In time, they lose respect for authority. Perhaps because adults are rarely able (or willing) to protect them. Maybe because many public authorities quite openly treat them and their families disrespectfully. Over time, they come to depend on “the streets” and their “peer culture” for safety...

When children of the poor realize that their lower level needs are not being met, they begin to seek satisfaction elsewhere, usually from within a culture that does not place much value on education. Obviously a small percentage of urban poor children achieve educational self-actualization in spite of their communities and economic circumstances. I will bet that these children are somehow experiencing a greater degree of basic needs satisfaction than the majority as well as being indoctrinated with the no excuses concept.