9-18-14 Perdido Street School

Perdido Street School:

Steve Forbes Loves Governor Cuomo

Want to know why Rob Astorino can't win in November?Because business people like Steve Forbes love them some Andrew Cuomo:BOLTON LANDING—Publishing titan and two-time Republican presidential aspirant Steve Forbes praised Andrew Cuomo before a speech Wednesday, but said it'll be a while before the governor can boast of a welcoming business climate in New York.“He's made some changes on the tax side

by reality-based edu... / 2min 

SUNY Chancellor To Promote Business Role In Education

From State of Politics:Also at 10 a.m., SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher and IBM Foundation president Stanley Litow discuss the role that business should play in education during the Business Council’s conference, The Sagamore, 110 Sagamore Rd., Bolton Landing.Because Bill Gates, Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg and a host of edu-entrepreneurs, hedge fundies, and tech and textbook companies don't have en

by reality-based edu... / 9min hide  //  save

Class Sizes Rise Again In NYCDOE Schools

From the Wall Street Journal:Average class sizes in grades 1-3 in New York City public schools rose to 25 or 26 children in the last school year—an addition of three students a class from five years earlier, according to the Mayor's Management Report released Wednesday. Average classes in grades 4-8 also rose but at a slower pace, and averaged 26 to 28 students.The report noted the city aims to br

by reality-based edu... / 2h 

9-17-14 Perdido Street School

Perdido Street School: Cuomo Wants To "Bridge The Broadband Divide" At Same Time He Can't Pay For The Tappan Zee Bridge ProjectIt is becoming increasingly clear that Governor Andrew M. Cuomo is building a $3.9 billion dollar replacement for the Tappan Zee Bridge that has no funding source.Cuomo tried to get half a billion in loans from the EPA clean water fund for the bridge, but that at

1 by mike simpson / 8h 

The White Fit | EduShyster

The White Fit | EduShyster:

The White Fit

 Recruiting more minority teachers is essential—after we drive out all of those who are already teaching…

Today’s high-stakes question involves the demographics of our nation’s teaching force. When and where is it appropriate to discuss the urgent need to diversify the nation’s teaching force whilst failing to acknowledge what’s happening to the ranks of minority teachers who are already teaching? The answer: in whatever city Arne Duncan’s *bigger rigor* bus tour happens to have landed. You see, even as a much-needed conversation about the vital importance of having teachers of color in front of an increasingly diverse student body is taking place, a bouquet of reform policies is effectively pushing out existing teachers of color. Bundle up reader, because we’re headed to Boston where the nip of fall is in the air and minority teachers are being *reformed* right out of the city’s public schools.

Needs improvement
Our destination today is Boston Latin Academy, one of the city’s exam schools, and home to the latest installment in our series: The Incredible Shrinking Veteran Minority Teaching Force. If you’re only just now tuning in, let me bring you up to speed. Two years ago, the Boston Public School rolled out a new evaluation system to provide *more rigorous oversight of teachers and administrators.* And there was great news—for administrators, who received rigorously robust ratings. As for the city’s minority teachers? Not so much. A rigorous review of school department data found that black and Hispanic teachers, along with older teachers, were more likely to score poorly than their *brighter,* *whiter* and *lighter* experienced colleagues.

Assessment assessment
Following so far? Good—or rather, bad—because here’s where an already troubling tale takes an even more troubling turn. At Boston Latin Academy, minority teachers (who were a decided minority), appear to have been singled out for an especially rigorous evaluation process at the hands of white administrators. [Note: if you have your assessment assessment rubric handy, check off *stepped up* classroom observations, *nuanced* The White Fit | EduShyster:

David Boies helped California gay couples win the right to marry. Now he’s attacking teacher tenure - The Washington Post

David Boies helped California gay couples win the right to marry. Now he’s attacking teacher tenure - The Washington Post:



David Boies helped California gay couples win the right to marry. Now he’s attacking teacher tenure

David Boies is an accomplished civil rights attorney who is probably best known for his Supreme Court cases, in which he has represented Al Gore and Californian gay couples seeking to marry. Now he is working on behalf of kids in urban schools, but his approach is a controversial one. He argues that teacher tenure denies students their right to an equal education, guaranteed in Brown v. Board of Education and many state constitutions.

Boies is chairman of the Partnership for Educational Justice, the group started by former news anchor Campbell Brown that has organized a lawsuit to eliminate tenure in New York. The group is planning more cases in other states. A similar effort succeeded in California earlier this year, and Gov. Jerry Brown is appealing that case.

Last week, Wonkblog talked about teacher tenure with Jesse Rothstein, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley who supports teacher tenure. Rothstein's research has shown that without teacher tenure, recruiting and retaining talented teachers would be even more difficult than it already is. On Monday, Wonkblog met with Boies to talk about teacher tenure -- specifically what it means for education to be a civil right and whether state and federal governments should provide equal funding to districts in wealthy and poor cities.

The debate over tenure, Boies said, might be a distraction from other, larger issues in the public schools where progress might be possible. "Everybody needs to step back and understand that this is part of a broader problem," Boies said. "I think both sides can probably find areas of agreement."

An edited transcript of the interview is below.

~~~

I wanted to start with Brown v. Board of Education. It's been 60 years. What do you see as the legacy of Brown vs. Board?

We are continuing to segregate our schools. While people now will say that segregation is based on economics, the history of this country has deprived many African American families of the same economic opportunities that other people have enjoyed. We segregate our schools in a way that is not only undesirable, but fundamentally at odds with the basic principles of our country.

Our basic principles in this country are that everybody deserves an opening shot. If you don't have an equal education, if you don't have equal home environment, you can't have that. You have many inner-city schools that are serving students whose lives are already severely challenged because of the economic and social circumstances of their families. Not only are they not getting the extra help that they need and deserve, they're not getting help that is remotely comparable to the educational opportunities that are given to children in upper income suburbs.

Teacher tenure is an important issue, but it's only one part of a much, much larger problem. Because teacher tenure is such a flash point, people are focusing on that issue, separate from the broader issue of how we provide educational equality to our students. Everybody needs to step back and understand that this is part of a broader problem. It would be desirable if both sides could get together on the issues that they agree on. I think both sides can probably find areas of agreement.

So what are some of those areas of agreement?

I think one of the areas of agreement is the need to increase educational budgets. I think another area is the need to move towards fiscal equality. Really just for historical reasons, we've evolved a funding mechanism for schools that was neighborhood based. As our neighborhoods have become increasingly unbalanced in terms of economic and social characteristics, that method of funding is increasingly untenable.

What the federal government can do is to help in terms of equalizing funding. There is a national obligation and a national imperative to improve our education system.

States can do that as well. There are state constitutions that compel that. The state constitutions in various places including California, including Florida, talk about the right to an education. They don't talk about the right to an education provided by Miami-Dade or Los Angeles. It is an obligation of the state of Florida, the state of California.

The issue of equal funding for schools across a state -- that might be another case.

Absolutely.

We're talking about not just tenure, we're talking about financing of the education system -- what else? Are there are other areas where you think people who are looking to improve the education system in this country could use the courts and the precedent of Brown vs. Board?

If you had fiscal equality, and you had promotion and retention on the merits, and you had some family choice, those three things would go a very long ways toward radically improving our education system. I believe we will have initiatives in other states before the New York case is over with. The decision has not been made.

I talked to Jesse Rothstein of Berkeley last week. He made two arguments about tenure that I'm hoping you can respond to. He David Boies helped California gay couples win the right to marry. Now he’s attacking teacher tenure - The Washington Post:

Why I Just Asked My Students To Put Their Laptops Away (Clay Shirky) | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice

Why I Just Asked My Students To Put Their Laptops Away (Clay Shirky) | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice:

Why I Just Asked My Students To Put Their Laptops Away (Clay Shirky)

Clay Shirky is a professor of media studies at New York University, consultant on the Internet, and writer. He is writing here about teaching his University courses and a recent decision that he made. The post appeared September 9, 2014.

I teach theory and practice of social media at NYU, and am an advocate and activist for the free culture movement, so I’m a pretty unlikely candidate for internet censor, but I have just asked the students in my fall seminar to refrain from using laptops, tablets, and phones in class.

I came late and reluctantly to this decision — I have been teaching classes about the internet since 1998, and I’ve generally had a laissez-faire attitude towards technology use in the classroom. This was partly because the subject of my classes made technology use feel organic, and when device use went well, it was great. Then there was the competitive aspect — it’s my job to be more interesting than the possible distractions, so a ban felt like cheating. And finally, there’s not wanting to infantilize my students, who are adults, even if young ones — time management is their job, not mine.

Despite these rationales, the practical effects of my decision to allow technology use in class grew worse over time. The level of distraction in my classes seemed to grow, even though it was the same professor and largely the same set of topics, taught to a group of students selected using roughly the same criteria every year. The change seemed to correlate more with the rising ubiquity and utility of the devices themselves, rather than any change in me, the students, or the rest of the classroom encounter.

Over the years, I’ve noticed that when I do have a specific reason to ask everyone to set aside their devices (‘Lids down’, in the parlance of my department), it’s as if someone has let fresh air into the room. The conversation brightens, and more recently, there is a sense of relief from many of the students. Multi-tasking is cognitively exhausting — when we do it by choice, being asked to stop can come as a welcome change.

So this year, I moved from recommending setting aside laptops and phones to requiring it, adding this to the class rules: “Stay focused. (No devices in class, Why I Just Asked My Students To Put Their Laptops Away (Clay Shirky) | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice:

NYC Educator: How About a UFT Cut-the-Strings, Free-the-Puppets Caucus?

NYC Educator: How About a UFT Cut-the-Strings, Free-the-Puppets Caucus?:

How About a UFT Cut-the-Strings, Free-the-Puppets Caucus?

I didn't start out criticizing our Union.  I started out with a sincere concern for the current state of affairs in education and the loss of respect among "reformers" for my profession.  This will always be my bottom line.  I thought my Union would always be with me, but I soon learned this was not the case.  I learned that my Union silences its own members who might differ in opinion.  I learned that something as simple as questioning the Core might be dangerous to one's career in Unity and it might even get you punched in the face and pushed in the dirt.  I learned Unity strikes deals and accepts grants that ultimately seem to put it at odds with so much that I hold dear.  And, I learned that a UFT Unity loyalty oath makes a mockery of the fact that teachers teach people to think.

The question naturally arises:  What kind of person gladly obeys a UFT Unity loyalty oath and unquestioningly votes as told?

1.  People who don't have time to think?
2.  People who don't trust their judgment?
3.  People who like to follow orders?
4.  People who just don't want to know?
5.  People with no time or desire to query constituents?
6.  People who believe Unity is infallible?
7.  People who believe this is the best we can do?
8.  People who primarily want to collect union paychecks and double pensions?
9.  People who want to hang with a prestigious in-crowd and attend conferences in spiffy settings via the union dues of the people they don't really represent?
10.  People who are afraid of being punched in the face and pushed in the dirt?

If there are any people who fit the bill for one to five above, I'm guessing they hope the fact is never publicized.

If there are those who believe that Unity is infallible, then they follow a dogma of blind obedience.  It must be awhile since they've looked around.  If NYC Educator: How About a UFT Cut-the-Strings, Free-the-Puppets Caucus?:

Rethinking A Fall Classic: The Parent-Teacher Conference : NPR Ed : NPR

Rethinking A Fall Classic: The Parent-Teacher Conference : NPR Ed : NPR:



Rethinking A Fall Classic: The Parent-Teacher Conference

by PATRICIA WILLENS

September 18, 2014 7:47 AM ET

 

So now that students have settled in to the routine of the school year, yet another fall education ritual looms: the parent-teacher conference.

And while there's universal agreement that parent involvement is a good thing, these all-too-short meetings are often frustrating on both sides.

Teachers, and parents, often find them too short and too shallow, too likely to focus on problems, with little time to really get beyond test scores and a few bullet points about the curriculum or homework. And, as children get older, fewer parents tend to show up.

In New York City this fall, the schools are trying to make these meetings richer and more productive. The first step is increasing the number of conferences each year from two to four.

School officials are tinkering around with the format and the timing: The first conferences are happening this week — earlier than ever in the school year.

"This is crucial so that parents understand from the beginning of the year what's expected of their children," the city's schools chancellor, Carmen Farina, said this week on WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show. "This is an opportunity for teachers to set out their agenda and for parents to ask the relevant questions."

The first meeting is meant to be a group experience with classroom teachers and other parents. One-on-one talks will come later in the year. (Here are some tips on how to make the most of that one-on-one time.)

"I am really excited about a parent-teacher conference that's mandated at the beginning of the year," says Nick Lawrence, who teaches social studies at East Bronx Academy for the Future, a school for grades 6-12.

"It's less about progress and more about getting to know the parents," he adds. "I see it as a time to have real conversations with the adults that we are going to be working with."

Many parents of his students work more than 80 hours a week, holding down multiple jobs, but that doesn't mean they can't be involved parents, he says.

As an example, he recalls one mother he spoke with on the phone several times a week.

"She could pick up anytime, but she couldn't come in," he explains. "Knowing that allowed me to reach her to talk about her daughter. Those are the kind of things we can figure out at this meeting."

Chancellor Farina says the notion that many parents don't care enough to come is a false one.

"I don't think we've done as good a job at letting parents know we're there to help them," she says. "I refuse to accept the premise that parents won't show up. There are lots of ways to make parents feel welcome."

Patricia Willens is the education editor at WNYC News in New York.

How To Make The Most Of Your 10 Minutes With Teacher

Like a good Boy Scout, parents should be prepared: Educators agree that doing your homework can make a big difference. Here's expert advice on how to ace your next parent-teacher conference.» E-Mail This

27 by Elissa Nadworny / 1h

Newark’s Local School Board Flexes Newfound Fiscal Muscles - NJ Spotlight

Newark’s Local School Board Flexes Newfound Fiscal Muscles - NJ Spotlight:

NEWARK’S LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD FLEXES NEWFOUND FISCAL MUSCLES

JOHN MOONEY | SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

Board wants to sign off on Superintendent Anderson’s contract for outside evaluation team

Iliana Melendez, left, a senior at Barringer High School, speaks at press conference with members of the local school advisory board.

Two weeks in, the new school year isn’t getting any easier for Newark Superintendent Cami Anderson, with a majority of her local school board yesterday ratcheting up the criticism of her One Newark reorganization plan.

But the board’s pushback may have a bit more muscle behind it this time, since it has been granted new fiscal powers in the state-appointed district and is starting to question some of the embattled superintendent’s initiatives.

RELATED LINKS

Request for Proposals for Evaluation of Anderson’s Programs

Back to School Means First-Day Jitters for Anderson, One Newark Plan

The latest is a move by Anderson to hire an outside firm to evaluate her reforms, starting with landmark teachers contract settled in 2012 that includes the state’s first large-scale performance bonuses.

The request for proposals (RFP) went out in the spring, according to district documents, but the board now is seeking a signoff on awarding the contract, which could be up to $1 million.

The evaluation is slated to come up at the board’s next meeting on Tuesday. The teachers contract itself runs through this school year, with negotiations for a new contract with the Newark Teachers Union yet to start.

“Supposedly we have fiscal controls, and that’s why we are asking for the information,” said Antoinette Baskerville-Richardson, a board member who has pressed hardest for the local authority. “We haven’t voted on it yet.”

After 20 years of full state oversight of the district, the board regained fiscal controls last year in a court-imposed settlement to a legal challenge of the state takeover.

Baskerville-Richardson said she was told by the district that the evaluation would be paid for by outside donors, and she said the board was only seeking the agreements reached with those funders. She said one possibility was the Foundation for Newark’s Future, the fund bankrolled by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, but she had yet to confirm that.

“We’re asking that any fiscal transaction, be it a grant, a donation, see complete transparency and come to the board to be voted on,” she said. “All we are being told is it is coming from a donor or a funder. We are asking what it is, and for how much.”

The RFP for the evaluation sought specific research and data as to whether Anderson’s teacher-quality measures, including the teacher contract and its incentives and disincentives, led to greater student achievement.

Baskerville-Richardson’s comments came yesterday after a press event outside Newark City Hall, where she and three other board members proclaimed their continued opposition to Anderson and her controversial reorganization of the district. This followed high-profile protests of the reorganization plan last week, including a boycott by some families and sit-in by students.

Board vice president Ariagna Perello also read statements of support for the event from two other board members. A notable absence was board president Rashon Newark’s Local School Board Flexes Newfound Fiscal Muscles - NJ Spotlight:

The Feds Bypass the State and Come Directly to Districts Asking Them To Commit To Federal Goals | Missouri Education Watchdog

The Feds Bypass the State and Come Directly to Districts Asking Them To Commit To Federal Goals | Missouri Education Watchdog:

The Feds Bypass the State and Come Directly to Districts Asking Them To Commit To Federal Goals

inShare

Someone please sign everyone at the USDoEd up for a refresher course on the constitution. They are really struggling with the concept of the 10th amendment.

The latest from Arne Duncan et al continues the tradition of the federal government inserting its nose into local school district decisions which the constitution does not allow for and ESEA expressly forbids. They are now going directly to local school districts and asking 16,000 Superintendent across the country to sign THEIR Future Ready technology pledge.

From the letter sent to Superintendents,

The U.S. Department of Education seeks to encourage and support superintendents who commit to taking a leadership role in this transition with recognition and resources to help facilitate this transition to digital learning.

The main goal of this initiative is to get districts, charters and private schools to commit to maximizing their use of digital learning and broadband access to the internet. They want schools to fund the resources necessary to “leverage their maximum impact on student learning… to develop the human capacity, digital materials, and device access to use the new bandwidth wisely and effectively.” In other words, buy more devices so you can meet our Race To The Top goal of 1:1 student:device ratio so you can purchase more digital learning services and supplies. They have a lot of high powered (well funded) friends of Washington who produce educational supplies and services who need to be repaid for helping get the right people in office so the bureaucrats could get an appointment.

They want districts to “transition to effective digital learning,” to “achieve tangible outcomes for the students they serve.” So here we all still are on the outcomes based education bandwagon.

It’s a nice little system. Millions of students with no other education option, will be pushed into using a private company’s product which will in turn continuously collect data on their use to improve said product. And who benefits from this? The private company. How many of our Superintendents will gladly be team players and sign this little pledge without any careful consideration of the costs of such an action? If history is any example, it unfortunately will be many (see photo above.)

Among other things, the pledge commits districts to helping support home internet access. Since when is this the job of a school district? If it is, then shouldn’t they also support efforts to get every child a nice desk and chair at which to study? Shouldn’t they also be in the business of making sure every child has a nice bed since sleep is critical to learning readiness? Where does the school district’s responsibility end when it comes to a child’s education? And since when is it the job of the education department of the federal government to make sure that internet is available in the The Feds Bypass the State and Come Directly to Districts Asking Them To Commit To Federal Goals | Missouri Education Watchdog:

Washington State Supreme Court Holds Legislature In Contempt Over School Funding | janresseger

Washington State Supreme Court Holds Legislature In Contempt Over School Funding | janresseger:

Washington State Supreme Court Holds Legislature In Contempt Over School Funding

Posted on September 18, 2014 by janresseger

Too frequently, even after a state supreme court finds the state’s school funding system unconstitutional, nothing much happens.  My state Ohio is the extreme example.  Three times the supreme court found Ohio’s school finance unconstitutional.  Then a fourth time the court spoke, reiterating that the system is unconstitutional but releasing jurisdiction in the case.  This meant the legislature no longer had an obligation to design a remedy.  Although the court found for the plaintiffs, nothing happened and nothing ever will.

Washington  state’s supreme court is taking a very different path.  In January of 2012 in what is known as the McCleary case, the state’s supreme court ruled in favor of the parent plaintiffs, and in the words of Joseph O’Sullivan of the Seattle Times, “ordered the state to increase education spending enough to fulfill the Washington state Legislature’s own definition of what it would take to meet the state constitution’s requirement of providing a basic education to all Washington children.”

Last week, on September 11, 2014, Washington’s supreme court spoke again to scold the legislature for dragging its feet.  In the original 2012 McCleary decision, the court gave Washington’s legislature what seemed like plenty of time to phase in a remedy—until the 2017-2018 school year, but the supreme court retained jurisdiction in the interim.  Last week the supreme court held the state legislature in contempt for failing to institute a time line that will ensure schools are fully funded by 2018.  The court has now given the legislature an ultimatum: get a remedy well underway by next year.  The Associated Press reports, “The court promised to reconvene and impose sanctions and other remedial measures if lawmakers do not make plans to solve the problem,” by the end of the legislative session in 2015.

Here is how—in the 2012 McCleary decision itself— the state’s supreme court justicesinterpreted the language of the education clause of Washington’s constitution.  Education spending must be “ample.”  “The word ‘ample’ in article IX, section 1 provides a broad constitutional guideline meaning fully sufficient, and considerably more than just adequate.  Ample funding for basic education must be accomplished by means of dependable and regular tax sources.  The State has not complied with its article IX, section 1 duty to make ample provision for the education of all children in Washington.”

The Associated Press reports that the legislature added $1 billion to the school fund in the recent budget, but cost studies that were the basis of the original McCleary decision indicated that the budget needs to be roughly $4 billion annually above the 2012 expenditure level.According to the Education Law Center, “Underfunded educational resources that the Washington State Supreme Court Holds Legislature In Contempt Over School Funding | janresseger:

Tom Hayden, counterculture icon, invites public to dig into his archives | Al Jazeera America

Tom Hayden, counterculture icon, invites public to dig into his archives | Al Jazeera America:

Tom Hayden, counterculture icon, invites public to dig into his archives

Cache includes 22,000 pages of FBI files showing government surveillance of him and Jane Fonda

September 18, 2014 5:00AM ET

by Steve Friess   @stevefriess

ANN ARBOR, Mich. – The man regarded as the intellectual father of the 1960s is opening up his archives in what historians of modern America regard as one of the most important document dumps in recent times, and one that breaks a tradition in which monumental public figures wait until they are dead to show the world the personal papers, diaries and mementos of their most tumultuous times.

This week, the University of Michigan has been hosting alumnus Tom Hayden, now 74, for a series of events that culminate in a celebration on Thursday to mark the delivery of more than 120 boxes of material that historians and journalists will likely spend generations exploring for insights into the making of that all-important epoch of social and cultural upheaval.

Among the key caches in the bequest are more than 22,000 pages of FBI files showing the government’s exhaustive 15-year surveillance of him and his then-wife Jane Fonda as well as the bureau’s often ham-handed attempts to create rifts between Hayden’s circle and other prominent civil rights groups such as the Black Panthers. Hayden obtained the files in the mid-1970s after successfully suing the government on grounds that they had been illegally monitoring his actions.

Tom Hayden (from left), Cesar Chavez and Ken Msemaji lead the march of the 10th annual Malcolm X Kuzaliwa celebration in May 1977.

 Tom Hayden Papers / University of Michigan

“Tom is one of the great figures of the 20th century,” said Maurice Isserman, a history professor at Hamilton College in New York and author of several books on the era including “America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s.” “He was absolutely formative in the early 1960s. I will be fascinated to see the archives, and it is wonderful to have them while he’s still alive.”

Hayden burst onto the national stage in the early 1960s as the primary drafter of the Port Huron Statement, a 25,000-word manifesto published in 1962 that laid out the goals of the then-budding student protest movement. He went on to become a leading voice opposing the Vietnam War, making several controversial visits to North Vietnam during the conflict. As a key organizer of student protests in Chicago outside the 1968 Democratic National Convention, Hayden was convicted of inciting violence, but the conviction was later overturned.

He also is the author of 20 books on social issues, and served 18 years in the California Legislature where he championed immigration rights, climate change and animal welfare. He ran unsuccessfully as the Democratic nominee for Los Angeles mayor and lost a close primary battle to unseat a sitting Democratic U.S. senator. As recently as last week, Hayden weighed in on current events in an essay for the San Francisco Chronicle in which he criticized President Barack Obama for not offering an exit strategy in his speech on the U.S. counterattack on ISIL.

“I can’t wait till after I’m dead [to make the archives public],” Hayden said in a phone interview from California last week in advance of his appearances in Ann Arbor. “A lot of this stuff was molding or on the verge of molding. It occurred to me it would be important to turn it over to some responsible researchers and archivists while I am alive and alert because it would help me go through it and share what is there with others, with professors, graduate students, with interested undergraduates.”

Hayden's archives include a cartoon the FBI created and planned to distribute to incite dissension between the New Left and the Black Panthers, and an FBI memo explaining why they didn't go through with it.

 Taoli Zhang

University of Michigan special collections curator Julie Herrada, who is overseeing the organization and management of the Hayden material, said Hayden’s availability to explain his own archives is unusual. “He’s also young enough to still come and actively engage and work with students regarding the papers,” she said, “[to] have them see the historical artifacts and talk to the person who created them.”

Indeed, Hayden insisted on it.

As part of his arrangement with UM, he will receive $200,000 over the coming four years to visit the campus and work with both archivists and students. Hayden said he also insisted that the UM collection, which primarily focuses on social movements, also accept his papers from his time as a California legislator so that his Tom Hayden, counterculture icon, invites public to dig into his archives | Al Jazeera America:

Shanker Blog » Regular Public And Charter Schools: Is A Different Conversation Possible?

Shanker Blog » Regular Public And Charter Schools: Is A Different Conversation Possible?:

Regular Public And Charter Schools: Is A Different Conversation Possible?

Posted by Esther Quintero on September 18, 2014

Uplifting Leadership, Andrew Hargreaves’ new book with coauthors Alan Boyle and Alma Harris, is based on a seven-year international study, and illustrates how leaders from diverse organizations were able to lift up their teams by harnessing and balancing qualities that we often view as opposites, such as dreaming and action, creativity and discipline, measurement and meaningfulness, and so on.

Chapter three, Collaboration With Competition, was particularly interesting to me and to our series, “The Social Side of Reform.” In that series, we’ve been emphasizing the value of collaboration and have considered extreme competition to be counterproductive. But, is that always the case? Can collaboration and competition live under the same roof and, in combination, promote systemic improvement? Could, for example, different types of schools serving (or competing for) the same students work in cooperative ways for the greater good of their communities?

Hargreaves and colleagues believe that establishing this environment is difficult but possible, and that it has already happened in some places. In fact, Al Shanker was one of the first proponents of a model that bears some similarity. In this post, I highlight some ideas and illustrations from Uplifting Leadership and tie them to Shanker’s own vision of how charter schools, conceived as idea incubators and, eventually, as innovations within the public school system, could potentially lift all students and the entire system, from the bottom up, one group of teachers at a time.

The London borough of Hackney is one of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom but, according to Hargreaves and colleagues, it may have a thing or two to teach us about “how to create collaborative relations among schools that compete” (Page 79). In 1999, the district was declared the worst in the country and in 2002 its administration was transferred to a private nonprofit called The Learning Trust. Over the following ten years, Hackney seemed to get better; what did the Trust do that might have facilitated such improvement?

One of the Trust’s more controversial moves was to build five new secondary school academies — similar to US charter schools. Organizing public education on the principles of competitive markets between individual schools, without local control, in a bid for parent customers, has often created cultures that focus on “my child,” “my class” and “my school” with not thought for anyone else’s child, class, or school. So the Hackney Learning Trust insisted that the academies protect and strengthen Hackney’s educational community — not undermine it.

(…) The schools had to be non-selective and a member of the family of Hackney schools. The point was to ensure that people should have an allegiance to Hackney’s community and its children — to a purpose that was bigger than their own self-interest. (…)”

To operationalize the notion of shared responsibility, educators established school-to-school networks or federations. This structure facilitated productive behavior, such as drawing on shared resources to help struggling schools. For example, two principals from high performing schools assumed joint leadership of a third low performing school, Holy Trinity. This meant they could switch teachers to coach their peers at Holy Trinity and that they could bring teachers from Holy Trinity to the other two schools so that they could see examples of good teaching.

But, as Hargreaves notes, examples like this are rare in the United States:

Neighboring public and charter schools are usually in competitions with each other for students and sheer survival. (…) On the benefits of school-to-school

Shanker Blog » Regular Public And Charter Schools: Is A Different Conversation Possible?: