"Those who can't, teach"

                I’ve had some excellent teachers in my life – brilliant people who had a passion for teaching, an ability to connect with students, a deep knowledge of their subject and a drive to improve themselves. They didn't try to be our friends, but they did listen to us, respect us and help us when we were down. I have a lot of respect for these teachers, and wouldn't change a thing about them.

                On the same note, I know some excellent teachers in Texas’ schools today. So when I say the following, I want it to be clear that I am aware this isn't a blanketed statement. But let’s face it. Many teachers aren’t up to par. There isn't any one person or group to blame. It’s a number of things, and that’s what we’ll look at today.

                Linus Wright, a former Dallas ISD superintendent, addresses this problem in “Restructuring Public Education for the 21^st Century.”

                "Teacher and administrator academic preparation must become more rigorous, and teacher employment more selective. University requirements for elementary and middle school teacher candidates must require more courses in the content areas and fewer in methodology."

                I have to mostly agree with him on this one.

1. The foundation

                First of all, many future teachers aren't prepared at the most basic level – in grade school. The same problems we have been outlining over the past several weeks contribute to a number of students graduating high school without a deep understanding of literature, certain math skills, the foundations of science and historical knowledge and context. They graduate college and they have somehow missed out on multicultural and fine art experiences. And in all of that, they lacked guidance that should have taught them how to find information they don’t know, to analyze information and to communicate their opinions. They don’t have a love of learning. They don’t know how to study in-depth or think critically.

                 Not to say that these students can’t figure them out for themselves as adults. And, not to say (as mentioned above) that this describes every student. Some have parents or excellent teachers who find ways to supplement what the system's curriculum is mostly void of. But without help, how can we expect children to teach themselves all the things mentioned above. Without this foundation, how could future teachers be prepared to teach?

2. The teaching programs

                As Wright mentions, the teaching programs at many Texas institutions of higher education are not rigorous enough. Some of the programs at the University of Texas (a nationally recognized institution for teaching and arguably the best school for teaching in the state) only require its students to maintain a C. C is average. It isn’t failing, but it isn't exceptional or outstanding. It’s simply average. Grades are not the ultimate indicator of success, it’s true, and many excellent teachers come from UT, but imagine if the best school in the state for education is producing only average teachers. What are all of the other, less rigorous schools producing?

3. The selection

                Wright also mentions that the selection process for employment isn’t selective enough. I’m curious to hear from the teachers how they feel about this. I, personally, have little experience with the selection process. I do know that I had a dozen or more classes in high school where I learned little. In one particular class, my best friend (who was a bright kid and a natural at the subject) took it upon himself to teach us what the teacher couldn't (think Harry Potter and Dumbledore’s Army learning defensive spells, but less secretive). I’m convinced he’s the only reason we passed our TAKS test in that subject. That speaks to all of the problems we've mentioned (concerning the ill-prepared teacher), but it could reflect poorly on the selection process as well.

4. The culture

                One of the biggest problems is the way our culture perceives teachers. I’m sure many of you have heard, more than once, the saying “Those who can’t, teach.” And, hopefully, many of you have thought, that’s rarely true. Many intelligent people give up employment opportunities in their field because they would rather teach. More importantly, teaching is a complex skill on its own. There are many who can’t teach – it certainly isn’t a skill anyone could just pick up because they aren't good at anything else.

                But our culture tells us otherwise, and, in the minds that don’t challenge it, that diminishes our respect for our teachers. It’s harder to teach students who don’t respect your profession. And it affects teachers too. What does it tell future teachers when they only have to maintain a C to get into an education department and get their certificate? It says, pretty much anyone could do this. It says that teachers aren’t important.

                I can’t tell you how many instances in my undergrad I heard of students switching from nursing, biology, math, etc. to become a teacher because they found the subject matter too difficult. I’ve heard students say something like, “I’m getting my degree in English because I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life… I’m going to graduate next semester and I still don’t know what I’m going to do with my life, so I’ll get my teaching certificate.” Often, these were the students who partied too much and studied too little.

                This shouldn't be the case. Teachers are an important part of our society, the backbone that gives us the foundations we need to be competent citizens. Shouldn't we expect more from out teachers? Shouldn't our culture give more respect to what teachers do?

                I could add another question to that list. Shouldn't we pay teachers more? And that’s what I’ll be discussing next week. How competitive is a teacher’s salary? And how would higher salaries benefit the field?

                Until then, please, discuss your thoughts in the comments. I’m curious to know what people think. 

Why this is a bad idea...

        Over the past month I have been posting thoughts on Linus Wright’s 13 points covered in “Restructuring Public Education for the 21st Century.” I’ve covered three of his points, and plan to cover the rest of them over the next 10 weeks (including today), posting the thoughts on Fridays.

        This week, we’ll look at his sixth point, which suggests taking vocational courses and transferring the cost to community colleges. I’m going to tell you why I think it’s a bad idea – and I’m curious to hear if you think it’s a bad idea, as well. The point says:

        6. Transfer high school vocational courses to the Community College, which can provide more comprehensive courses at much lower cost. Using adjunct instructors at community colleges, the cost is approximately one-fifth the cost for the same instruction in public high schools. The excessive cost for vocational course in the high school is the result of (a) using full-time certified teachers, (b) necessary lab and shop equipment, and (c) the necessity of smaller classes for this type of instruction. Contract with a Community College to teach vocational courses in the existing high school facilities for college credit. Community colleges use adjunct instructors at a cost of approximately $2000-$3000 per semester course as opposed to a high school using a full-time certified teacher at a cost of approximately $40,000-$50,000 per year.

            At a cursory glance, it might seem like a good idea. $4,000 to $6,000 a year compared to $40,000 to $50,000 appears to be a saving a lot of money. But looking closer – as I did over a conversation with my lovely wife, Sarah – I think you’ll see flaws in his argument. I will lay them out in four points.

1. Will this cost students extra money?

The first problem I notice is that duel credit programs generally costs students extra money. They have to earn acceptance into the community college, pay tuition (generally not full tuition, but a much cheaper rate), buy books and possibly other materials. For students who intend to attend college, this can seem like a no-brainer – it’s cheaper credit that will likely transfer. But for students who don’t intend to go to college (often for financial reasons), it can seem like too much hassle to jump through these hoops. Or, worse, their family may not have extra money to pay for these costs. Often the students who benefit most from vocational classes are students from lower class families. These students learn valuable skills that can take them directly into the job market, where they can make a decent living and contribute to society. If they can’t afford these classes, are we doing a service to our students with the greatest need? 

2. Doesn’t this create scheduling problems?

            I’m sure most of you have noticed that a class run by a community college would only meet two or three times a week. If they met every day, they would have to pay their adjunct          professors more. How does this fit into a high school schedule (block schedules exempted) where students have a consistent schedule every day?

            But there’s a more important scheduling conflict at hand. For students to participate in these vocational classes (and I know many students who take some sort of ag or shops class ever year of high school) they would, as we mentioned, have to earn acceptance into the community college. This excludes freshmen and sophomores, who aren’t old enough to apply, or would have to take a placement tests that likely has material they haven’t had a chance to learn in order to apply. Students learn skills best, hands-on or not, over time. Cut the time they can take vocational classes down to two years, and you’ve decreased the value of your work force.

            On another note, many school districts are not close enough to any type of college to make this plan happen. This suggestions shows preferential treatment to districts in urban centers at the expense of small community districts.

3. What happens to the full-time teachers the adjunct professors are replacing?

            So far we’ve focused on the effects on students, but now we have to ask ourselves how this affects ag teachers and other vocational teachers in high schools. First, that $40,000 to $50,000 a year he mentions isn’t spent entirely on vocational classes. That is only a part of what a full time teacher does, unless he or she only teaches vocational classes and doesn’t have any other duties (such as organizations related to vocational classes). If Wright eliminates these teachers, he is taking focus off of one of his points (one we haven’t covered – that teacher’s pay should be re-evaluated to match market value – which most would interpret to mean they should be paid more) and putting it on a management-focused style to running schools, instead of a curriculum based style. The past couple of decades indicate that curriculum-based management is much more effective than management-based (but that’s a post for another day!). Is eliminating an entire genre of teachers an excellent option?            

4. What should an adjunct professor get paid, anyhow?

            His whole idea brings up another important idea. Do adjunct professors get paid enough as it is? At one university, the most an adjunct professor could make was a little more than $1,200 per class. That certainly doesn’t pay many bills or support a family. When you consider all of the duties an adjunct professor has – prepping for classes, teaching classes, grading papers, handling issues with students, holding office hours, administering tests, other possible faculty duties AND, in this scenario, driving several times a week to one or more high school to teach vocational classes – that’s hardly a fair compensation by most standards. Is it, then, ethical to take advantage of adjunct professors who don’t get paid enough as it is to save school district’s money? I would say, hardly. 

Kissing "are" year goodbye

                I bet you favored your senior year of high school over every other. Everyone gets some pleasure out of homecoming, Prom, pranks, your last year to participate in sports and academics and the beloved Senioritis – whether that pleasure stems from being the star of the football team, winning homecoming Queen or laughing at the pair of them as they trip because her heels are too high is dependent on where you fit in your high school.

                Now, imagine that those moments never happened.

If, instead, your spent your last year of high school (Junior year) preparing to take a standardized test so you can pass, graduate and move on to college, trade school, the work force or your parents’ basement.

                Linus Wright, a former Dallas ISD superintendent and the undersecretary of education in the Reagan administration, suggests this measure to reform Texas’ education system in “Restructuring Public Education for the 21^st Century.” His fifth recommendation (out of 13) says:  

5. Eliminate 12^th grade from high school, using those funds for full-day schooling for 3 and 4-year-olds. The 12^th grade is the least productive and most expensive. Texas added the 12^th grade requirement in 1940 at the end of the depression, not for educational purposes but to solve an unemployment problem of young people on the streets with nothing to occupy them.

                

               Last week we discussed the pros and cons of public education starting with 3 year olds (feel free to check out those thoughts if you haven’t yet.) I didn’t conclude that argument, though, because I wanted to discuss funding such a program in more detail. That’s what the purpose of today’s blog is.

                In theory, Wright’s proposal to eliminate 12^th grade has a lot of merit. From experience, and listening to others, I can tell that most seniors learn little in 12^th grade. By the end of their Junior year, they know if they have passed the standardized testing needed to graduate. Senior year becomes a time to show up to enough classes to walk. Even for the students who don’t let Senioritis get them down too much, they spend a lot more time filling out scholarship and college applications than mastering new skills. Homework itself is often easier, as some teachers see seniors as group that has earned their degree and too distracted to put much effort into school work. Many students are engaged in duel credit from poorly structured community colleges classes, where they learn virtually nothing. Seniors anticipate senior skip days, and have, as mentioned above, a flurry of social functions to distract them, as well. The last few weeks of school, more than any other, are about putting in your time than learning. It’s easy to see seniors are not a highly productive group.

                At the same time, imagine how much money a school spends on its seniors. We’ve already mentioned all of the social functions the school hosts for them. Graduation is an expensive program. Teachers’ salaries are paid whether seniors learn anything or not.

                The National Center for Policy Analysis, where Wright is a senior fellow, suggests that the senior year is the most expensive and least productive – a bad combination at best. You can see how there is merit for this argument. If you keep in mind that many students drop out before their senior year as it is, the combination goes from bad to worse.

                If you take into account Wright’s argument that Texas created senior year in 1941 to keep students from entering a market of high unemployment, you can see how this is unnecessary (once our present-day unemployment rate drops), especially with the affordability of trade schools, community colleges and even some four-year universities. The 1941 decision served its purpose, but why keep an antiquated system when its use is run dry?

                Despite Wright’s logical conclusion that eliminating senior year rids of our most expensive and least productive reminder of the Great Depression and opens funds for early childhood education, I see a serious flaw in his ideas.

                Most seniors aren’t truly ready to graduate at 18. A surprising amount of 18 year olds drop out because they aren’t mature enough to handle freedom and responsibility or they don’t have proper study skills and the ability to find information for themselves (some students also drop out for lack of funding). This number is pegged at 27 percent at four-year colleges and nearly half (44 percent) at two-year colleges by the McGraw-Hill Research Foundation. Jay P. Greene and Greg Forster found that only 32 percent of students who graduated high school in 2001 were ready to succeed at a four-year university, in their study “Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the United States.” To understand the impact of those numbers, you have to keep in mind that about 30 percent of high school students don’t graduate high school, Greene and Forster found. That means only about 25 percent of all 18 and 17 year olds (those who should graduate high school) in any given year are prepared for college.

              Now, I’m not saying that everyone should want to go to college. I am saying that if about 25 percent of the population is ready for college each year, than it stands to reason that about 75 percent of high school graduates or students who should have graduated in any given year are missing important skills that are needed in the work force, in raising a family and in everyday life. Do we, then, believe that 17 and 16 year olds are better prepared to graduate after their Junior year?

                No, before we consider eliminating 12^th grade, we need to first consider how to give more than 14 percent of our population the skills they need to succeed upon graduation. What would those measures be? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

                In all fairness, Wright addresses that issue in “Restructuring ….” After all, we only covered one point today. He wants to eliminate 12^th grade to fund early childhood education, which could give students some of the needed skills to succeed. His arguments also include making requirements to become a teacher more rigorous and selective, restructuring all grade levels so parents can be more involved and teaching core values. But, I would like to see specifics on how curriculum and teacher selectivity can change to better prepare students to graduate. Once specifics are laid out, then talks of eliminating 12^th grade can commence, if the specifics help solve the problem enough.

                I haven’t decided which of his 13 points I’ll cover next week. I named a few in the previous paragraph, and if there’s one in particular you’d like for me to cover, please, let me know. Thanks for reading.  

The end of summer?

I still haven’t had a chance to read “Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell, but in preparation of reading the book, I want to give some preliminary thoughts.

“Outliers,” as I understand it, discusses the problems with summer break, especially for economically disadvantaged students. He’s not the first person I’ve heard of that wants to lengthen the summer break. Former Dallas ISD Superintendent Linus Wright advocates this change, as well as longer school days.

The argument is that summer break is outdated. It stems from our predominantly agricultural days when farming families needed all hands in the field in the afternoons and summers. Students often dropped out of school when their family decided they had enough to pass as a farmer (or needed full-time help). As anyone could infer, students don’t need summer breaks and afternoons to work on the farm – if anything, many complain that unsupervised time off (such as from 3 to 5 p.m. when parents are still at work, or most of summer break) allows students time to find and make all sorts of trouble.

The RAND Corporation says that economically disadvantaged students slip, on average, a month behind their achievement level in the spring. Trying to catch those students up from a month’s worth of learning keeps teachers from teaching, hypothetically, a different month’s worth of skills and information.

The National Summer Learning Association says the solution is summer school. It says that this program would be different from regular school (more hands-on, more field trips, Socratic teaching methods, etc.). Duval County Public Schools in Florida cites research suggesting hands-on summer elementary programs help involved students improve from Fs and Ds to As and Bs, and helps close the gap gained over the summer break.



I see a different problem, though. In theory I agree with the idea that if students spent more time in school, they might learn more (or forget less) and get into less trouble over the break. But in practice, one could argue that a lot of time is wasted every day in school as it is. Most students see the last week of school as a time to watch movies or go on earned trips to Six Flags or the theater, not to mention time wasted throughout the school year.

U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan said, “Our students today are competing against children in India and China. Those students are going to school 25 to 30 percent longer than we are. Our students, I think, are at a competitive disadvantage. I think we're doing them a disservice.”

If you go by those numbers, you might argue the U.S. is at a competitive disadvantaged (some, such as the Center for Public Education, don’t – they believe that Duncan’s sources use elementary figures, or that if you look at the number of hours spent in instructional time, the U.S. spends more time learning).

I don’t believe that looking at how long a country is in school is looking at the whole picture. Wouldn’t we learn more by analyzing China and India’s curriculum? What do they teach their students? How do they spend their time (regardless of whether it’s less or more)?

After all, 16 countries scored higher on the Program for International Student Assessment in reading literacy, 30 countries scored higher mathematics literacy, and 22 scored higher in science literacy, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Doesn’t it make more sense to learn what these 14 to 30 countries teach about literacy, science and math and how they teach them? How long they are in school is important; but, it’s certainly not the most important factor.

Finland (who scored 3nd in reading literacy on the PISA, 6th in mathematics literacy and 2nd in science literacy) spends less time in school than Texas does and performs better on international tests. Finland spends about 777 hours in instruction in an average middle school year, according to CPE. Texas, in comparison, spends around 1,260 hours.

It’s important to understand that the U.S. has a highly different situation than China, India, Finland or any of the other countries that perform better than we do. We would need to analyze and test any ideas we glean from their methods. It’s also important to note that the PISA isn’t a perfect indicator of a countries achievement – many other countries only test their brightest students. But the U.S. isn’t close to the top in any comparison – something needs to change.

What do you think? Should summer break be shortened or eliminated? How could we make the time we already attend school more productive? And what can we learn from the countries who perform better than us?

Positive and detrimental values

                Sarah’s ethics in education class recently asked her to communicate two values: one of the most important we can teach and one of the most detrimental. I’m trying to talk her into guest writing on this blog to tell you her answer, which was thoughtful, well-communicated and intriguing, so I won’t tell you what she said. But she asked me what I would have answered were I in that class and I wanted to get other’s opinions on my answer.

               

                I believe one of the most detrimental values we teach our students is how to work the system. More specifically, students learn how to cram for a test the night before (or morning of) and then promptly forget the information as soon as the test is over. Trust me, I’ve been there. And at the time, it seemed like a smart idea. After all, a lot of students think if you’re smart enough to beat the system, why not. Beating the system can be a skill all its own.

                But having been there and graduated, I can also tell you this system of learning hurts students in the long run. Whatever information they were supposed to have learned, they have to relearn in college, or in the real world. I’m currently studying for the GRE, and let me tell you, I wish I had paid more attention in math (and taken college algebra, but that’s a different story).

               

                To counter this value, I chose teaching the benefits and importance of knowledge. If students valued knowledge, this cramming-and-forgetting culture could be replaced with people who are prepared for college, trade school or the work force, and adults who are prepared to teach any subject to others, or especially, their children. This would be particularly beneficial if you paired a love of learning with the ability to find information for yourself. Knowing how to and where to look for what you don’t know (and having the patience to do it) could give any student the tools to succeed. Cramming-and-forgetting culture does not.

                I have to admit, I don’t know how you would shape the education culture to fit this. The only idea I have stems from my high school Spanish class. Dr. V (I know, who has a PhD in a 1A school?) required a lot from us. She expected us to study daily and to understand the material thoroughly, and her tests were comprehensive. If I’m not mistaken, students regularly failed her classes. Perhaps if we expected more of our students, we would have better results. But I’m not sure if that promotes the culture of valuing knowledge. I’m not sure what would.

                I’m interested to know how others would have answered the question in Sarah’s class. What is one of the most important values we teach, and what is one of the most detrimental values we teach?

                

An early start

If you didn't put your 3 year old in day care, you might be appalled by the idea of handing him or her over to a non-degreed employee of the state. But that is, in fact, what  Linus Wright, a former Dallas ISD superintendant and author of “Restructuring Public Education for the 21^st Century,” suggests.

Did you know around 4,500,000 children between the ages of zero and 11 live in Texas, and around 2.7 percent of them are in childcare, according to ChildCareAware of America, a national child care advocate?  

A lot more children – ages three and four – than 2.7 percent would benefit from structured child care, Wright believes. His first point (of 13) states:

         Early childhood education – full day for all non-English speakers and children of poverty. Non-   

        degreed teachers with strong development training have proven to be very effective with 3- and 4-year 

        old children. Research is available showing that students taught full-day by these teachers show greater  

        academic progress (and at considerable less cost per student) than students taught half-day by degreed 

        teachers. Educational First Steps, a non-profit agency in Dallas, Texas, provide a replicable model of 

        what can be done and how to do it. They provide training for teachers and parents and age-

        appropriate academics for 4,500 3 and 4 year olds in 95 different preschools at a cost of  

        approximately $500 per student.

The Problem

        Wright sites several reasons he believes this idea will work.
        First of all, as I’m sure you noticed, he places a lot of emphasis on “children of poverty.” He states that most impoverished children have a vocabulary of around 400 words at age six (when most enter public schools). Children with more affluent parents have vocabularies of 2,000 to 4,000 words by age six.
        He argues that the children who know only 400 words have a significantly harder time learning to read in first grade, and that the gap between the impoverished children and affluent children grows every year. This same idea would apply to children who don’t know English well coming into the first grade. Wright insinuates that this is a cause of America’s high drop out rate, a number he cites at 30 to 40 percent.

The Plan

        He counters this problem with early childhood education. He says that 3- and 4-year-old children “at these early ages are like sponges — they eagerly receive, process and retain information of lasting value.” He also states that impoverished mothers and fathers often work outside the home, therefore necessitating child care for the safety of the children. He argues that combining child care with education for 3 and 4 year olds, such as the Educational First Steps based in Dallas, will provide a cost-effective program (in part, because the teachers won’t have degrees) that gives economically disadvantaged students a chance to start on a level playing field.

The Benefits

        What will this accomplish? Other than the level-playing-field concept, Wright argues that: “Early childhood education will greatly reduce the later expense associated with remedial classes, high school dropouts, etc.” He also cites statistics stating that the U.S. imprisons more people than any other nations, that 70 to 80 percent of those inmates can’t read above a fourth grade level and that the U.S. spends five times more to incarcerate said inmates than to educate them. You can see how these statistics lend to the idea that if students were on the same level before they are six, they will be less expensive citizens in the long run. He adds that, in 2010, 80 percent of high school graduates could not pass a simple mental test to qualify for the armed forces. Through these numbers he is attempting to relate that these less expensive citizens will also be more informed and more productive.

The Counter Points

        Will this idea work?
        First of all, you have to keep in mind that he cited problems associated with statistics without proving early childhood education can solve those problems. For example, he says 70 to 80 percent of inmates can’t read above a fourth grade level, but he doesn’t give an explicit reason to believe that’s the reason they are imprisoned or his program would solve this expensive problem. The same could be said about most of his statistics.
        Some reasons some suggests early childhood education would not work:

        1. It would be too expensive, especially in today’s economic climate (Wright provides his solution on this, and we’ll get to that next week).
        2. Not all students who go through already-established early childhood education programs (such as Head Start) finish high school. In fact, some say these programs only benefit students for the first couple of years of elementary school.
        3. These programs don’t pull impoverished kids’ parents out of poverty, so they still face many of the challenges. Some argue that the benefits of these programs aren’t enough in face of the challenges.
        4. Some say that 3- and 4-year-old children are more intellectually stimulated by staying at home with the parents, and that early childhood development may in fact be detrimental to this age group. (I would argue that this won’t matter in most lower-income families because both parents are likely working).

        Most of these opponents recognized that there are typically long-term effects for children in early childhood education.
        This is not a complete list of pros or cons. I’m sure you could think of many more, and I encourage you to comment.

        In regard to the “too expensive” argument against early childhood education, you might ask yourself how a cash-strapped state is going to afford two more years of school. Wright provides his solution for this, as well.

         Many would call it a radical idea – eliminating the senior year of high school and using those funds to afford early childhood education for 3 and 4 year olds. I’ll look at this idea next week. Until then, a friend of mine suggested I read the book “Outliers” by Malcom Gladwell. As soon as I get a chance, I plan to read this book and solicit your opinions on decreasing the length of summer break (the premise of Gladwell’s book, as I understand it – an idea Wright eludes too, as well). And I’m still working through “The Death and Life of the Great American School System” by Diane Ravitch – which I’m finding has fascinating thoughts on “A Nation at Risk” (as does Jonathan Kozol’s “Illiterate America”). Has anyone else read Ravitch’s book?
Let me know your thoughts. Thanks for reading!

1. Early childhood education—full day for all non-English speakers and childrenof poverty. Non-degreed teachers with strong child development traininghave proven to be very effective with 3 and 4-year-old children. Research isavailable showing that students taught full-day by these teachers show greater academic progress (and at considerableless costper student) than studentstaught half-day by degreed teachers. Educational First Steps, a non-profitagency in Dallas, Texas, provides a replicable model of what can be done andhow to do it. They provide training for teachers and parents and age-appropriate academics for 4500 3 and 4-year-olds in 95 different pre-schoolsat a cost of approximately $500 per student.

I just couldn't wait...

            I’m sure most of you can remember a time that you read or heard something and were so impressed you had to share. I didn’t intend on blogging about a book I’m reading until I finished it, but I am so impressed after reading the first chapter, I want to share.  

The book is “The Death and Life of the Great American School System” by Diane Ravitch. Within her first chapter she is strikingly and refreshingly open, so much so, you feel that she is an intimate friend who is bearing her soul.

            She impresses me with her bravery. It takes a strong person to admit that the public policy she adamantly advocated is wrong. (She heralded the No Child Left Behind initiative while working under the Bush Administration.)

            But, she said, after seeing NCLB in practice, she decided it only works in theory.

“I kept asking myself why I was losing confidence in these reforms. My answer: I have a right to change my mind.”

In the process of explaining the situation she revealed some dominant traits that complement her bravery.

First of all, she displayed honesty and humbleness. She states that throughout her life, she has spoken out against what she calls “the lure of ‘the royal road to learning,’” or the idea that there can be an easy solution to educational problems. But she openly admits that while working for the federal government, she fell for the “royal road” in NCLB. In doing this, she opens critics to accuse her of an unfair proportion of the blame for any failures NCLB has. But more importantly, admitting mistakes like this is an admirable way to communicate, and allows her to influence others in a special way.

In opening her book this way, she is also asking others to judge what she has done, even if only in their own minds. The opinions that reach her, though, she can use to further form her opinion and act upon. This openness to criticism and ideas makes her an exceptional scholar and person.

I was especially impressed by her obvious dedication to facts. She quotes economist John Maynard Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind.” She states that doubt and skepticism, even of our own beliefs, are the marks of a rationale mind.

“When we are too certain of our opinions, we run the risk of ignoring any evidence that conflicts with our views. It is doubt that shows we are still thinking, still willing to reexamine hardened beliefs when confronted with new facts and new evidence,” she said.

She didn’t let past actions or thoughts dictate who she is or what she says. She wasn’t swayed by the possibility that some might ridicule her for changing her mind. She looked at the facts and attempted to accept them without bias.

Finally, she revealed a clear writing style and direct approach to voice that I admire. So far, she’s taken what could be a complicated, bureaucratic and dry subject (education policy) and transformed it into a relevant, engaging topic that’s easy to understand, and still retains its complex tendencies. I am not an expert on education policy, and I’ve had no trouble understanding her words. She speaks out against a program she helped create – and yet she writes so clearly. Clear writing takes clear thinking, a hard to find trait that I can only hope to achieve.

As for the content of the chapter, she surfaces some interesting thoughts that I’m sure she’ll cover in more detail. In particular, she argues for an emphasis on curriculum and instruction as opposed to markets and choice. This goes back to NCLB ideas she bought into that education could be run by focusing on management and accountability (such as standardized testing), instead of focusing on curriculum and instruction.

She emphasizes that “in education, there are no shortcuts, no utopias, and no silver bullets.” She cites NCLB a silver bullet. Instead, she hopes people will focus on what she calls the essentials of education – a strong curriculum, the knowledge to understand politics and science, a responsibility to democracy, well-educated teachers, standards of learning, and standards of behavior, to summarize.

I am looking forward to continuing this book.