A Boy We Knew

Again we found ourselves at a funeral that happened much too soon. One of our former students (only 19), and brother to children still in our school, was brutally shot and killed last week. We can go over and over this, and we will never find an answer. This young man with a huge smile was a promising student, a good athlete, a happy and sunny boy--a kid universally liked by his teachers. He worked hard, tried to do right, and was a good big brother. Those of us who taught him in seventh and eighth grade could no more believe this happened to him than we could believe we'll fly to the moon tomorrow. But it did happen, and who is there to blame?? A culture that glorifies guns and denigrates hard work, that glorifies "gangsta" life (such as it is) leads to the death of too many young black men. Some buy into this mythical, destructive culture, and some are just caught up in the peripheral violence. None of them deserve to die this young--leaving behind more sorrow than they could imagine. What can we at schools do to stop this? I truly despair of finding an answer. We give kids a safe haven all day and an education--but sometimes they still have to go home to communities that have too many guns and not enough jobs. Many of us like to think these are not "our" problems, but ultimately they are. A community robbed of its most precious resource--its young--is a community in crisis. This crisis needs to be stopped by ALL of us--starting with the members of the community and moving outward to envelop and involve all of us.

Knowing Your Kids

This week, for just about the first time all year, I saw T get excited about something. T is one of my reading and social studies students who has been "a tough nut to crack". He is usually sort of quiet, even sullen--and does just enough work to get by. It has been hard to get to know anything at all about him--he does not seem to find enjoyment in much of anything. But this week, I got a glimpse of something he cares about and it has given me a whole new perspective on T and his life. We were walking from one building of our school to the next, when I heard T's excited voice: "Mrs. Luebbert, Mrs. Luebbert can we stop and look at that?" His voice was so urgent, I stopped and said, "What is it, T?" It was trash and recycling day in our neighborhood, and T had spotted an old aquarium tank someone had put out. "The tank, can I see the tank?" "OK, but what for?" T informed me he had a turtle, and that the turtle needed an bigger tank. He was thrilled at the possibility that he may have found that tank. Unfortunately, taking a closer look, we realized one side of the tank was cracked, so it would not work. But, I learned something important about T--he had a pet that he likes to care for. On the way into class I asked him a little about his turtle and he was happy to tell me. This short exchange was the first real personal thing I knew about T outside of school--and it gives me an "in"-- subjects he may be interested in, or something to talk about or ask about when I see he is in a bad mood or getting ready to fight.
This small incident led me to reflect on how important it is to teachers that we have a chance to get to know our students. It makes a great difference in the lives of students and in the life of the classroom if teachers can form relationships with their students. It saddens me that this time is less and less available to us as we think about testing and documenting results all the time. Not all things that help a child's education are quantifiable in numbers and test results. We used to have an "advisory" period--time that we did attendance while kids read independently or got ready for the day. This was a good time to talk to kids and to find out about their lives. Now, however, we have a "do-now" activity that has to be kept track of for the region. Instead of getting ready for classes, or discussing a problem or issue with teachers and peers, kids now have to do another activity that will be graded. I've had kids tell me all manner of things during advisory ---they range from just showing me photos of things they are proud of--family members, get-togethers, etc..., to telling me they had a fight with a sibling or parents, informing me a family member is ill, or even that they were upset because a brother was "going away" (a common euphemism for prison).
I always figure that my students tell me things because they need to, and it is my job to comfort, advise, or sometimes just listen. It also helps me teach my students better when I know them better. I can give them slack the days they need it and tough love the days they need it. If I know them , I know what might get them interested in a subject, or what they might like to read. Teachers need time to foster these relationships--and in our crazy "Race To The Top" world--we are losing it. Of course, most of us still carve it out somewhere---in the walks between classes, on the way to lunch, and after the bell rings. But what all the education reformers need to realize is that kids need trust and relationships as much as they need math and reading and science and social studies. Letting teachers foster relationships will lead to students who flourish in other areas as well.

Can Charter Schools Compete On A Level Playing Field?

Well, In the Philadelphia School District we are going to be opening MORE charter schools. This decision by Dr. Ackerman comes during the same week that we have learned that six or seven Philadelphia Charters are under federal investigation for "financial irregularities". Three of the charters even hired a super accountant who (according to her) works between 400-600 days per year! (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100331_City_Controller_questions_payments_to_charter-school_accountant.html). Even during all this turmoil, the powers that be have decided that most of the "Renaissance Schools" (schools that are deemed persistently troubled) will be given over to charter operators. Nine schools will be converted to charters, and Ackerman is keeping six for herself and her cronies--those will be turned into "Promise Academies". The interesting, little discussed part of all of this is that the charter operators will have to deal with a new twist: SUPPOSEDLY, they will be obligated to keep all the students already in the school. This is a complete game changer for charter schools. Anyone who is at all familiar with charter schools knows that they specialize in turfing out any kind of problematic student. The "problems" might consist of a mild to severe discipline problem, an attendance problem, little to no parental involvement, or a child who desperately needs an IEP that the school simply does not want to deal with. For years charters have sent these sorts of students back to their neighborhood public schools with nary a second thought. One of my students lasted exactly 10 DAYS in her charter school, another was given the cliche "the school is not a good fit for you" before they sent him packing. This is classic charter school speak--it is the school equivalent of "it's not you, it's me." The issue for regular neighborhood public schools is that we are open equally to all comers--bad attitude, bad attendance, uninvolved parents, the works. Of course, that is the stated and sacred mission of public education--so we do not really mind. What we DO mind is being compared to schools that get to select students. We also mind entities that spend public tax dollars being exempt from the rules of public schools. However, if you can believe the School District (and I'm not betting the farm on their veracity), the charters that take over the Renaissance Schools will have no choice but to deal with all the students in the catchment area. So, it will be quite interesting to see how this plays out: How many students will be "encouraged" to apply for a voluntary transfer or an extenuating circumstances transfer? What will charter operators do when parents refuse to show up for meetings, or tell their kids it is a good idea to get involved in fights? How will charters deal with the myriad problems that already exist in the schools they are taking over? The charter school toolkit for dealing with difficult students is not really very large--it mostly consists of saying "see ya" to the problems. How will they be able to cope when the difficult students are theirs for keeps? OR, will the district--in a desperate attempt to prove that their initiative is a success--manipulate the students and the numbers and quietly allow charters to conduct business as usual (getting rid of the students that are hard to work with)?? It will be very compelling to see how it all plays out, and I (as well as many other teachers I know) will be watching closely to see what happens.

Another Modest Proposal

My compatriot "Mick-of-the-Moment" (I don't know him, but he/she is a frequent blogger on Philly.com) had the following take on the Obama/Duncan/Bloomburg/Ackerman idea to improve public school education, Mick would like to carry the great educational reform ideas over to crime fighting: "Areas of the city with consistently poor crime statistics should have all police officers fired and only 50% can successfully re-apply for their jobs. These districts would be forbidden to join any FOP (union) type organization and officers who work in areas of the city with good crime stats can be moved into a Renaissance police district at any time. Hooray for the Renaissance model!! We all know the way to fix struggling communities is to hold the public employees 100% accountable and the community itself completely unaccountable." Does this sound crazy to you? Of course not! After all, a similar idea is about to save public education. All we have to do to make sure that children being raised in poor neighborhoods that are trapped in an unceasing cycle of generational poverty do well in school is FIRE THEIR TEACHERS! That's right, the very people who have dedicated a great portion of their lives to urban education, who feel called to work in places with legions of problems, who feel privileged to offer a safe haven to kids from tenuous neighborhoods everyday, ARE THE ONES TO BLAME for educational failure! Yes, the test scores and achievement levels that the government measures ARE lower for poverty-stricken students, but that may just be because of poverty and deprivation itself. And, yes, some schools have been able to make astounding achievements in extremely poor areas--but they are usually charters that are able to self-select for very motivated parents and children. The children whose parents are unable or unwilling to participate in their education are the children who we work with every day. Not all teachers are great or even good, but wholesale firing of entire school staffs are certainly not the answer. The Unions have already agreed to newer and innovative methods of evaluations and training for teachers. Most teachers put heart and soul into their work--we do not deserve the sole blame for a large, intractable societal problem. The way to come to a true solution for educational reform is to ask parents and teachers what they need. Society and political leaders need to have the stomach to hold parents and communities accountable for their children. We need to attack poverty and make sure children are safe and well-cared for. Only then will we be able to truly institute educational reforms that work.

Who Are "THESE" Kids??

As I read many responses to education articles (in the Inquirer and Daily News) lately, I have become slightly dispirited. Although many comments can be helpful and germane to the larger conversation on educational reform, there are a depressing number of comments that refer to "these kids". "These kids" the rant goes, are irredeemable, not able to be educated, worthless, beyond saving..... So, WHO are "these kids" in regular (non-magnet,low SES) Philly public schools? What are they like? Well, if a demographer walked into my seventh grade North Philly classroom here is what he or she would see: A class that is over 90% minority and 75% "poor" (judged by the number of children who qualify for free lunch), a class in which only one or two children live in a home with both parents, a class in which 25% of the children receive Special Education services. Those are simply the facts; it is no more the sum of my students than any set of numbers could be. Here is what I see: A group of boys and girls who can be, on any given day, funny, engaging, heartbreaking, infuriating, hard-working, insightful, lazy..... In other words, kids who are like almost any other group of twelve and thirteen year-olds in the country! In my advisory (homeroom class) I have several talented cartoonists, three or four students who read at a 10th grade level, several who read waaay below grade level, an aspiring nurse-midwife, boys crazy for basketball, some kids with worries too big for a seventh-grader, four drum students, kids who are well taken care of, kids who are neglected, and worlds of potential. Most of my students (and the others in our school) truly want a connection with their school and teachers. It never ceases to amaze me how eager they are to say hello in the morning (even if they were reprimanded the previous day), open doors for me, carry bags, and in general seek out positive interactions with adults. That is what I see and experience every day. Others have shown, through words or actions that they see something or someone to be fearful of. One of the funniest and saddest things that ever happened when I was with my students was this: We were walking as a class between our two school buildings to the gym. Many of my seventh graders--especially the boys--are quite a bit taller that I am, so it may not have been apparent to passersby that the students were supervised. We were walking down the school sidewalk, a little noisy but generally in good spirits when a man who appeared to be about 25 or so (and Caucasian) decided to wander down the side walk with his rottweiler. When he saw and heard my students (mostly African-American) he visibly flinched and recoiled. A hale and hearty 25 year old man was intimidated by a bunch of twelve year-olds. One of my boys said, "Mrs. L, what's up with that dude?" I professed not to know, and we headed to the gym. This man, had he known my students, may have found them as endearing and/or fun to play basketball with as their phys ed teacher did. But he saw "these kids" and was afraid. The truth is that "these kids" are really the same as our kids. In fact, in a very true sense, they are our kids.

Why Don't Liberals Really Like Poor Children?

First of all, I am a liberal--so this post is following common societal mores for truth telling--you are allowed to criticize your own group. Here is what is bugging me lately about people who call themselves liberals: they don't REALLY like poor kids. Oh, they like them in theory, they don't mind tax money being spent to help them, they believe that the children deserve a good education, they just don't want poor children sitting next to their kids in a public school. Oh its OK if there are some really interesting poor families in the school: in other words families with compelling/heartrending up from nothing stories (up being the operative word), or--even better--newly arrived immigrant families with an interesting language or cultural perspective to contribute to the school. That way, they can pat themselves on the back about diversity while not being made uncomfortable by the reality of true poverty. The children they really do not want to have to deal with on a daily basis are the children of entrenched, generational poverty that live very close to their own neighborhoods. THOSE children might have problems, THOSE children might come to school hungry or not have stable housing, THOSE children might cause their children to ask uncomfortable questions. Being poor does not make you a bad parent any more than being wealthy makes you a good one--but being poor probably makes it harder to do everything that good parenting requires. And it definitely makes you more tired.
Liberal parents will say they make many herculean efforts to keep their kids out of certain Philadelphia neighborhood schools (applying to the nominal public schools called charters or trying to transfer to a public school in a high socioeconomic status neighborhood) because they are searching out the best possible education for their children. In many ways that is true. But the truth is that liberals are like everybody else--they are most comfortable with their own kind. If you are a middle class liberal it is really very comfortable to talk to other parents in the schoolyard if your main topic of conversation can be which $500.00 stroller to buy, which house cleaner is the best, or which art/dance/sport class to enroll your kid in. If, however, you are faced with having to relate to a parent who is rushing between two low-wage jobs and may not make rent--well, that might be awkward. And, you might be revealed NOT to be the wonderful, egalitarian, liberal that you thought you were.
The very best, most productive thing that middle-class liberal parents (I'm not criticizing conservatives here because they don't tend to be disingenuous about their educational motives) can do for poor children is to allow their own children to attend school with them! All schools would be improved by the presence of a really diverse student and parent population, society would be improved because children would learn how to move gracefully in many kinds of circles from a young age, and--because a rising tide lifts all boats--I don't believe that any children (liberal middle to high SES or not) would lose out educationally or socially by this arrangement. Perhaps, just maybe, this could put our society on the road to a truly meaningful education for all.

"P" is for Parents and Powerful

One of the things that can drive teachers crazy is that we are NEVER permitted to mention the "P" Word. When we are in meetings talking about how to improve things in schools and for students, the "P" word is not allowed to be spoken. What, you might ask, is the dreaded "P" word? Well, it is "PARENTS". Parents, we have all been told, are their child's first teachers. Parents are the ones who spend the most time with their children before they go to school, and parents are the ones who transmit (either obviously or implicitly) their attitudes towards school and education to their offspring. Every classroom teacher knows that if you need to do some special or extra work with a student, you must get a parent on your side before it can happen. However, school administrators and government officials who deal with education are extremely reluctant to call some parents out on their neglectful behavior. If a child does not come to school, or comes to kindergarten woefully ill-prepared, or is tired and/or hungry everyday, WHO is responsible for that?? Well, logic would tell you it is the parents, but school districts will tell you that the school (meaning teachers) MUST find a way to overcome all this and make sure the child becomes proficient or advanced in all subjects.
What would happen if we told the truth to parents? What would happen if we said, "You are the single most powerful person in your child's life. Nothing I do can work without your support."? Would parents step up, own their power, and use it to propel their children towards success? I think they would. I hope they would. We know that some parents have always done this. This kind of parental involvement and power does not always tie into to socio-economic status, we have all known poor parents who make sure their children excel in school and wealthy parents who are quite neglectful. However, too often, poorer schools are the schools that lack sufficient parental involvement. There are many reasons for this, but maybe we need to stop listing the reasons, and just ask parents to accept their power. Being a parent is the most important job we will ever do, and we all must realize that it is critical for our children that parents own up to their influence and make sure their children take advantage of all school opportunities open to them.