Thanks For Sharing

NYC Educator had a comical story today following Jay Matthews' (WaPo ed blogger/correspondent) ways to fix schools without spending a dime. Matthews' article was on the heels of Nicholas Kristof's op-ed in the Sunday New York Times. I certainly don't mind reporting about education. One thing that I learned while an undergraduate political science major was that too few people are participating in the discussion. Without discussion you end up with only a few people having their ideas being pushed, and it becomes a government of the priveledged, not one of the people (changing government is a whole different story).

My issue with Matthews and Kristoff is that they aren't really pushing great ideas. Charter schools, calling parents with kind words, and good pedagogy aren't going to make a dent in education. For one, while charter schools are all the rage they aren't shown to be the great education savior that is being pushed. They aren't a magic elixir, and pushing them to the public only further dilutes public faith in restoring public schools. Why help public schools when you can go to the magic charter school that cures everyone?

The shame in all of this is that Matthews and Kristoff write for large metropolitan newspapers. Others actually read their writing, and may start to drink the Kool-Aid. Why do we have to have people who aren't teachers, and have never experienced teaching, telling everyone what needs to be changed about teaching and education?

Where We Differ

A friend of mine posted a link to Nicholas Kristoff's Sunday Op-Ed in the NY Times. It was titled "Our National Shame" (registration required for the NYTimes... you can try bug me not), with the crux being that education has supplanted health care as the great American crisis. I don't dispute Mr. Kristoff's claim that we need to shift our focus from health care to education, nor that we should be fighting the war on poverty through education. Where I disagree is with his, as well as Arne Duncan and many others', assertion that charter schools (like KIPP) are the solution. The case can, and has been, made that charter schools have results that are no better than public school results. Additionally, the results of programs like KIPP (which certainly are laudable) fail to mention the number of drop-outs from their program, or the struggles of their graduates when they leave the regimented confines of the program (there are two links I am missing, but will find!).

Additionally I always struggle with talk about education and "good teaching." Kristoff mentions "good teaching" and how studies show that "good teachers" make the difference in education. Duh? Would you expect anything different?! Where I am confused is what writers, such as Mr. Kristoff, define as good teaching? What is good pedagogy to you? Everyone says that they want good teachers, and everyone thinks we have agreement, but I am not sure that we have the same believes about what "good" actually is. Good to you might be 100% direct instruction with worksheets related to the great tomes of knowledge our students should know. For me it would be cooperative learning groups where students are constructing knowledge around problems that are kids can relate to. What is good teaching to you?