• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

5th Avenue Percussions

November 23, 2011, 2:57 pm

Sunday, unseasonably warm and beautiful for late fall, I wandered coatless across Central Park to a meeting of the New York affiliate of the National Association of Scholars. Sol Stern was speaking on school reform—on his dashed hopes for the good that he once thought would come from No Child Left Behind and by the early promise of Mayor Bloomberg’s push for higher standards. I knew Stern’s work from having reviewed his 2004 book on school reform Breaking Free and was eager to hear him: a former leftist, once an editor of the radical Ramparts magazine, who turned conservative largely as a result of his encounter with the union-dominated New York City public schools.

The event was at the apartment of a couple of longtime NAS friends who live on Fifth Avenue near the Metropolitan Museum. Even non-New Yorkers will recognize that as an extraordinary address, and a New York apartment that can comfortably make room for fifty or so seated guests testifies to something similar.

But as my wife and I arrived at their building, we encountered a police cordon, bicycle-rack style barricades, and Guy Fawkes. The Occupy Wall Street Army, displaced from Zuccotti Park by order of the mayor, had decided to march on Bloomberg’s residence, a few doors down the block from our hosts (the New York Times covers the protest here). The police were keeping the protesters at a distance, but when we mentioned our destination, we were whisked through.

Bloomberg wasn’t home that day but the Occupiers weren’t about to let that detail stand in the way of the festivities. As Sol Stern delivered his rueful account (“The Great Education Fraud”) of how Bloomberg had spun gold into straw—increasing the school’s budget from $12.7 billion to $22 billion in a decade for no discernible educational gain—he was accompanied by the Occupiers’ well-rehearsed percussion session.

It was a nice touch: inside, a deeply-informed critic of how the Bloomberg administration’s policies have squandered educational opportunities for all and especially hindered NYC’s poor; outside, a mass of not-so-well-informed people creating a meaningless racket. Inside, what were surely some of the members of the “1 percent” trying to listen intently to a proponent of educational equity. Outside, a mass of protesters demanding that the “1 percent” listen to nonstop drumming.

The NAS folks took it all in good spirit. Sol Stern firmly turned aside anything that sounded like a “utopian” solution to school reform in New York City, or across the country. The voucher movement hadn’t come to much after the 2002 Supreme Court decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that seemed to open the doors to this kind of reform. Efforts to break the union stranglehold on public schools had foundered on the complicity of politicians hungry for union campaign contributions. Charter schools had become subject to the odd idea that they had to educate the academically least talented students to prove their worth. The racial “achievement gap” had become among the most intractable of the nation’s problems. Schools of education continued to churn out legions of teachers who disdain the age-old art of communicating knowledge to the young, and who devote themselves to promoting social justice instead. The “small schools” movement lavishly funded by Bill Gates had turned out to be an expensive detour leading to nowhere. (Small schools are no better than large ones when it comes to how well students learn. They just make education more expensive.) Reading instruction has been co-opted by modish theories such as “balanced literacy,” which is little more than a re-branding of the discredited “whole language movement.” Bloomberg’s school reform efforts came to wreck on his and former School Chancellor (2002-10) Joel Klein’s foolish decision to invest in the views of experts such as Teacher College’s professor in children’s literature, Lucy Calkins.

Stern was speaking freely without notes and I wasn’t taking any either, so this is no more than a rough summary. But it captures the autumnal spirit of his talk.

Stern’s only recipe for success, borrowed from his sister, who is a teacher, is, “Sit down, shut up, and learn how to read.” But how we get to this simple destination is hard to say. Stern admires E.D. Hirsch’s “knowledge based” approaches to schooling, but Hirsch’s program has little public traction. In Stern’s view, we know pretty well how to educate students. We have just lost the public will to follow through. The blockades multiply; the spending spirals; the political nostrums proliferate; the excuses pile up—and education continues to stagnate.

There were occasional lulls in the drumming outside: perhaps a little discontent with all-purpose discontentedness was settling in. Inside there was also plenty of discontent as audience members raked through the coals of reforms that promised much and delivered next to nothing. Which, if either, form of discontent is likely to eventuate in actual improvements to our society? It’s an open question. Maybe the fellow in the Guy Fawkes mask will be a force in the next election. Maybe the salon in the Fifth Avenue apartment lit a fuse. Or maybe both will go home in settled frustration, still waiting for their moment.

The Occupy movement certainly captures a mood of futility. Nothing seems to work; and those who proclaim themselves able to fix things seem mostly to make them worse. It is a hard place to be in the day before Thanksgiving.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • chuckkle

    Am I reading this melancholic post correctly if it seems Wood, having earlier disparaged liberal reforms, has now given up on conservative politicians being able to solve education problems?  Is there then no fulcrum point for change?  Very odd for the leader of an organization devoted to critique of the dominant system to just give up and shrug.

    Chuck Kleinhans

  • http://twitter.com/Inverness Inverness

    The writer seems oddly focused on discrediting protesters, who had clear messages to deliver. There is a nihilistic tone to this piece, which could discuss meaningful reform, which has actually happened in Canada (check out their most recent PISA scores), Finland…But as usual, author takes a provincial approach and bemoans that all federal, state, and local reforms failed. Of course they did!  Bloomberg’s approach runs counter to what has actually worked, and embraces the kinds of reform that continues to sink states like Texas (a very poor performer on national tests). Why not study nations who have actually made progress? Hint: maybe because they have are against privitization, charters, corporate reading programs and merit pay? 

  • bscmath78

    I wonder what Stern, the author, the NAS or the audience thought caused NCLB to be a disappointment. How has it been a disappointment from their perspectives?

    I am also puzzled why NCLB was not thought to be a mess, if not a disaster for the Humanities, in the making, from the very start, given its conceptual similarity to the British Revised Code of 1862 with its “payment by results” in a union-free laissez-faire system. The Revised Code produced results that seem echoed in NCLB, except for the lack of reported gaming, deception and fraud (except for the nefarious Matthew Arnold who failed to dock failing schools in his job as school inspector). NCLB seemed designed from the beginning to require “the Curriculum of Forgetting.”

    “Pupils were subjected once again to a more rote/mechanical means of teaching which drilled them in the techniques of test-taking”

    “This meant that grants could be allocated to schools taught largely by untrained teachers because they would be cheaper than trained teachers and therefore might seem a better business proposition for the managers.”

    “‘If it is not cheap, it shall be efficient; if it is not efficient it shall be cheap.’” – Robert Lowe

    This was the promise of the Revised Code of 1862 (“payment by results”) as stated to the British House of Commons. It was a system that resulted in the elimination of all subjects that weren’t subject to testing and the elimination of anything above the standard of the testing, the lowest common denominator.  With no escape for the clever, since fast advancement would reduce the income of the school.  In fairness to the British, at least it was cheap, NCLB accomplished neither goal and did so at enormous expense.

    http://books.google.ca/books?id=2FiCvLK4ox0C&pg=PR20&dq=%22drilled+them+in+the+techniques+of+test-taking%22&hl=en&ei=f8rGTq-WMuXm0QGPtvj4Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22drilled%20them%20in%20the%20techniques%20of%20test-taking%22&f=false

    This was just one part of a long British tradition of expending much time and effort (and sometimes money) on counter-productive educational activities. Rote memorization having a long and hallowed tradition in UK education, exams and perceptions of merit. Helping to produce that lack of imagination that sent junior officers kicking soccer-balls towards the German machine guns, leading thousands to their deaths, on the first day of the Battle of the Somme.

  • bscmath78

    “It introduced the notorious system of ‘payment by results’ . . .Its effects on the teaching of grammar, geography, and history were disastrous, as their teaching did not affect a school’s revenues.”

    So reads part of the “Revised code” entry in the 1989 edition of “Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable”.   But in some subsequent edition, the “Revised code” was revised into oblivion! It is no more, it joins the Norwegian Blue Parrots of experience.  Not quite Winston Smith in “1984″, but certainly part of the “the Curriculum of Forgetting.”

    In honor of Thanksgiving, let us note this result of the Revised Code:

    “teachers ‘stuffed and almost roasted’ (Hyndman, 1978, p 34) their pupils on test items once the teachers knew that the visit of the inspector was imminent. Other teachers secretly trained their pupils so that when they were asked questions they raised their right hands if they knew the correct answer but their left if they did not, thus creating a more favourable impression upon the visiting inspectors.”

    Page 161 of:
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/3099799

    So my previous claim of “except for the lack of reported gaming, deception and fraud” is incorrect.

    “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages [sic], infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

    But I guess Santayana is another part of “the Curriculum of Forgetting.”

  • marktropolis

    I think it’s always curious that the right wants to trumpet the former leftists-turrned-conservatives like Sol Stern or David Horowitz (especially if there were sufficiently radial to have worked at Ramparts), praising their consciousness. But when someone like Diane Ravitch makes a change in the other direction, she is criticized for being two-faced or a political opportunist.

    Not to mention the dismissive attitude towards the OWS marches – those uninformed rabble-rousers. Obviously, if the NAS gang was having their meeting at a prestigious 5th Avenue address, they *must* know what they are talking about. 

    And then the old trope that unions are by definition evil. But those guys hanging out in an over-priced few-thousand-foot apartment on 5th Ave are assumed to know what they’re talking about. Clearly address doesn’t equal knowledge, seeing as how Bloomberg lives right down the street…

  • peterwwood

    bscmath78 wonders what Sol Stern, I, and the audience at Stern’s talk think was disappointing about No Child Left Behind.  I can speak mostly for myself, though Mr. Stern did say some relevant things.  He pointed out, for example, that the NCLB set impossible goals (e.g. all students to have achieved proficiency in math and reading by 2014); that the law left it to the states to define the standards, creating an incentive to set them low; and that the emphasis on testing was an invitation to abuse that many teachers and even whole school districts responded to with a determination to cheat.

     My own view of NCLB is similar to bscmath78′s at least in regard to the humanities.  A system of rigorous testing in core subjects makes sense up to a point but inevitably puts emphasis on the easily testable and undervalues forms of knowledge and judgment that resist quantification. 

    As to the several individuals who have posted comments to the effect that I am, as one put it, “discrediting protesters,” I disagree.  The OWS movement has chosen its own tactics and messages.  These are indeed discrediting in the eyes of most observers, but I don’t see any need to insist on the point.  People can make up their own minds.

    Peter Wood

  • bscmath78

    peterwood, thank you for your response.  The items that Mr. Stern listed seem exactly what should have been expected in 2001 as soon as the legislation could be read. The legislation seemed designed, from the start, through its omissions and commissions, to have the mentioned results.  The fact that we do not annually see hundreds of teachers and school administrators sentenced to chain-gangs is evidence of this. No one needed to remember or look-up the Revised Code of 1862 to see the inherent design flaws in its 2001 beginning, though it certainly would have been helpful.

    The problem that “all students to have achieved proficiency in math and reading by 2014″ is inherent in the law’s very name: “No Child Left Behind” which implies dumbed-down standards, cheating and the sacrifice of 80% of children to a very expensive, mind-numbing, intellectually stunting parody of education.  “A Nation of Gold-Plated Epsilons” would have been less clear since that would require an understanding of “Brave New World”, yet another part of “the Curriculum of Forgetting.”

    Did Mr. Stern or anyone else suggest the repeal of NCLB?

  • peterwwood

    I don’t recall the word “repeal” being used but the tenor of Mr. Stern’s talk and the ensuing discussion left me with a strong impression that the legislation is unpopular with NAS members.  NCLB has not been a major thread of discussion at NAS over the years and I imagine members hold a variety of views, but on this occasion, the prevailing sense was that the law was poorly conceived and quickly co-opted.  

    Peter Wood

  • bscmath78

    Thank you for the response.

  • pianiste

    “The OWS movement has chosen its own tactics and messages.  These are indeed discrediting in the eyes of most observers…”

    Hello?

    1. Mr. Wood pulls “in the eyes of most observers” out of a hat. Exactly who constitutes the pool of “observers” of which Mr. Woods speaks? Observers who are NAS members, sure. Observers who read The Wall Street Journal, probably. Observers who are the general public? Not so fast: http://www.observer.com/2011/10/fox-news-web-poll-on-occupy-wall-street-sentiment-backfires/

    2. Of course the “tactics and messages” of a mass public protest are going to be less decorous than those of somebody giving a lecture in a zillion-dollar apartment on that part of Fifth Avenue near the Metropolitan Museum. And if you want real neat, efficient decorum, try the annual meeting of NewsCorp, at which (Harry Shearer’s “Le Show” had a tape of it) a motion was seconded and the meeting was adjourned before the vote was counted. Maybe they were distracted by all those street ruffians banging on buckets outside.

  • busyslinky

    Caffeine, lots of caffeine.  Both for the instructor and the students. 

  • nico108

    I struggled with this all semester. I also had a class that met in the evenings and once a week. I feel like I lost the entire semester to apathy and if it had been my first semester teaching I would have decided teaching was not for me. (Thankfully, I have had great classes with the same texts in the past…)
    It wasn’t just one class but the entire semester. They didn’t like me and I didn’t like them. I tired various things to bring them back—incorporating more writing (and getting rid of writing), trying to read just with the text St John’s style, trying more lecture, posing a question…nothing seemed to work.
    I really deeply feel like I failed with them.

  • jstuntz

    I have them stand up, turn around a few times, and then they have to keep standing until they ask a good question. If the weather is good, we can go outside. (Yes, they do not retain much from an outside lesson but they weren’t getting much inside, either, in this example.) Sometime we do the hokey-pokey. Anything that is out-of-norm will revive them, especially if it is silly. If I could tell jokes well, I would do that.

  • climate_change

    Here’s 25 years of teaching experience talking…some times a particular group of students is just plain bad (apathetic, rude, uncaring, whatever).  Just forget it.  Don’t sacrifice your teaching aspirations, positive attitude, goals for tricks and games.  It won’t work, and the students will see through it.  Just move on and look forward to next semester.

    And guess what?  Sometimes a student from one of those hopeless classes will approach you years later and tell you what a great class it was.  Go figure.

  • 1hova

    Yep, you and Frank are they only ones who care.

  • neurojoe

    “The Top Ten Reasons I’m Apathetic”
    #1:

  • 11134078

     I once had an evening class that didn’t end until 10:45 PM—and we were all working adults, of course. Interestingly, the idea of a break or breaks was voted down by an overwhelming majority. Almost everyone preferred to soldier on, grimly if necessary, so as to get home and get a decent bit of sleep before having to go work early the following morning.

  • matias_addy

    I had a handful of students in spring who expected to fail but continued to attend. Some didn’t even try to make it look as though they were the least bit attune to lecture: nothing out on their desks, smart-phone clearly visible, talking to neighbor, etc. I’d have to ask them to stop talking, or put away smart-phones, oftentimes more than once during a single 75-min class. They just didn’t care. They never did homework and were consistently scoring below 50% on tests but didn’t take this as an indication that they should perhaps take notes.

    Why keep attending if there’s no way for you to pass? Why keep wasting your time? There are other places where you can screw around on your smart-phones, in fact places where there isn’t a professor repeatedly telling you to put it away.  I think that they continued to attend due to an unfortunate short-term outlook on consequences. These were students who, based on all outward indicators, were fresh-off-the-boat from high school. This being a commuter college, I assume they were still living with their parents. My guess is that they didn’t want to tell their parents that they were failing and found it easier in the short-term to keep attending and lie about how they were doing.  They expected to fail, but better deal with explaining that when it occurs.

    Our college policy is such that I can withdraw them if they are failing and have accumulated a threshold level of absences relative to the number of class sessions, so maybe they had this in mind, too.  One student seemed to be attempting to stay in the class by repeated attendance, but wasn’t keeping close-enough track of absences, so I managed to cut him or her–thankfully, too, as s/he had a habit of looking up from the smart-phone every couple of minutes and demanding that everything be re-explained, extremely frustrating when you don’t want to engage publicly in a verbal confrontation.

    These students came increasingly to conceptualize the classroom entirely as a social/recreational space, where as long as they sat there and were a bit discreet about it, then they could use smart-phones and talk to friends they might have had in the class. Yes, the professor impedes these activities with reminders to be quiet or put away the phone, but it’s a milder form of harassment than one gets from parents or employers for doing those things during times when they’re supposed to be working. Having a back-pack was a formality mainly for appearance’s sake.  The best part is that I may well have some of them in my class for their second and maybe third tours.

  • obelix

    I call attention to the lack of energy in the room and ask them what’s up, and what we should all do about it. 

    I change topics. Often to something involving 80s pop tunes or a recent celebrity or political scandal (same thing, really).  Relevance is secondary to scandalousness.

    I ask an intentionally over-the-top provocative question (or pose a similar hypothetical situation related to the class topic).

    And sometimes, I simply *gasp* cancel class and ask them to come back more energized the next week.

    Here’s one I haven’t tried yet, but intend to soon: Ask everyone to report what they’re looking at on their laptop right now.

  • educate_run

    You cared!  When you tried and everything fell flat, you tried something new.  You could just go in and lecture and feed into the students apathy.  I have been educating college students for over 15 years and I had apathetic classes.  I have to just keep reaching into my bag of tricks or talk to another cohort and see what they do about apathetic classes.