Let's go, GMOs! Some recent lowlights from science textbooks

Today's edition of La Presse has an article on an elementary school science textbook that contains the follow rather unbalanced content on GMOs (genetically modified organisms):

In the future, we will see more and more genetically modified fruits and vegetables that are capable of defending themselves against disease and insects. We will therefore have less need to use polluting pesticides. Nutritious and hardy, these fruits and vegetables will, we think, be even tastier than before. Apples won't have any more seeds, strawberries will be sweeter and juicier, and pears will keep for longer. It is also foreseeable that medicines and vaccines will be integrated in foods... (my translation from French)

This extract reminds me of some of the gems that I uncovered while researching Québec junior high school science textbooks.

When the Pineapple Races the Hare . . .

Note: if you haven't been following the story of the New York State test that offered the Pineapple and the Hare story, followed by questions, this won't make sense.  (Actually it will, but not as much sense.) The gist of it is that the test borrowed a story from Daniel Pinkwater, changed a few details, and then asked questions about it that baffled eighth graders taking the test.  New York announced that the questions related to that passage wouldn't count towards students' scores.  Critics say this shows the flaws in standardized testing.  I say it makes perfect sense, and here's why:

 Once there was a huge capitalist democracy that included a lot of children, some of them well-off, some of them poor, and most of them somewhere in the middle.

 "Hey," said the parents with a lot of resources, "how about our kids have a race?" Now, the children of the parents with a lot of resources, as you know, came to school with pretty good early literacy skills, numeracy skills, books at home, health care, financial stability and more. Or, as the sociologists like to say, capital: financial, human, social and cultural. The poor children, as you also know, had less of all these things.

Most of the American public bet on the poor children because America is a land of equal opportunity, in which any child can rise to the highest peaks of achievement simply through will-power and dedication. (The best-off parents bet on their own kids -- sending them to private schools, skillfully manoevering them into top-notch public schools, paying for summer camp, etc. etc, but when it comes time to answer the questions, remember that this is extraneous to the story.)

The race started and there was a lot of cheering.  "We're number 1!" the spectators shouted. "Just look at what happened to those European Socialist democracies -- stagnation! Deficits! Vacation time and welfare and wine and cheese and, um, um, well, look at the stagnation and deficits!" "USA! USA!"

 The well-off children streaked out of sight. The poor children looked out the window. They played with their friends on the playground. They squinted at the blackboard. They doodled and said "I don't know".

Everybody knew that in some surprising way this had nothing to do with the political choices that shaped their circumstances and that still, somehow, America was the land of equal opportunity and they would end up winning the race. Nothing of the sort happened. Eventually, the well-off children took the winners share of the spoils, while the poor children lost all around.

The capitalist democracy ate the poor children and said it was all their fault anyway.

Moral: The Pineapple and the Hare story is no more absurd than the notion that standardized testing leads to equitable outcomes for America's children. 

(Credit goes to Daniel Pinkwater for the original story of the Eggplant and the Rabbit.)

Take responsibility not tests!

Lots happening in teaching today and I'll comment on three:

1) Bill Gates and Charlotte Danielson agree with teachers that bubble tests are not the answer to whatever the educational question happens to be. Nonetheless, nobody suggests getting rid of them altogether; just use them sanely (don't, e.g. release teachers' scores to the public) AND keep trying to construct assessments that are both authentic and do-able. Check out http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2012/03/20/gates.html?tkn=YYOFvJReWV7OELHkPh1bCubdpGAVRhUGbVE%2F&cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1.

So if the big money (Gates) and the big expertise (Danielson) on the side of angels, why aren't those angels pushing back big time and mounting resistance to the continued foregrounding of standardized tests in educational policy decisions. Barack and Arne, get a grip!

2) Kids in blended schools (on-line plus face to face) like the individualization and autonomy BUT criticize the blended format because they have to take more responsibility for their own learning. YES! I am laughing myself silly and I think Dewey might be chuckling too. Apparently in at least some places blended settings are getting it right and developing kids who are both smart and good (even if they are a little resistant to it at first). But I have to say that I doubt it's "blended learning" per se that is making the difference but an educational approach using digital tools combined with that focus on autonomy and responsibility. And that's been happening in some kinds of alternative schools for a long time. (I'll haul out my oft-used example of Central Park East High School in the early 90s -- but we could go back much further than that).

3) Emily Douglas who was talked out of being a teacher by her teachers who told her they weren't paid enough and they were not respected found her way back to education with Batelle for Kids after a career in human resources. But she's paying attention to the buzz of teachers now and is worried that we are heading for a teacher shortage. And a recent Met Life survey supports that buzz, suggesting that good folks are getting fed up, losing their heart for this critical work, becoming literally "de-moralized" as my friend Doris Santoro points out.

The second story looks to me to be very good news, that in some places at least, technology is being used in just the educational ways we want and need. But the first and third stories are looking like potential opportunities missed unless educators -- and parents -- everywhere stand up and speak differently. Current policy that leads with weak and indefensible forms of standardized testing resulting in high stakes decisions is driving teachers away and we know it doesn't represent the goals that anybody has for any real kids. Forget parent-trigger laws (another of today's stories) and advocate for and help to create educational spaces where the only thing kids can complain about is that they have to take responsibility for their own learning! I love it ....

John Dewey Society annual meeting information

The John Dewey Society will be having its annual meeting in Vancouver, BC, in conjunction with AERA. A full program of Dewey Society events is available by clicking here. The inaugural School and Society Forum is of particular interest; the theme is "Teachers' Unions Build Trust in Teachers" and panel topics include professional autonomy, advocacy for teachers, and parent and community support.

Minecraft in education?

I recently saw this video of a multi-day collaborative building project in Minecraft, which is a sort of game/online sandbox environment. All of the little whirling dervishes are avatars of users who are working together to assemble the building blocks that will eventually form the train station.

My intuition is that the educational possibilities of a sandbox environments like this could be interesting, but I can't yet work out what sorts of tasks classroom teachers could get kids to do in Minecraft. Any thoughts?

In the Chronicle of Higher Ed...

Last week, Goldie Blumenstyk, a reporter with the Chronicle of Higher Education, called me to discuss University of Phoenix's alternative graduation rates. As we've pointed out in previous posts, University of Phoenix's numbers are grim.

Ms. Blumenstyk's article on alternative graduation rates is here.

From Contraception to Curriculum: Matters of Conscience?

I’ve been hearing a lot about conscience this week. In the national discussion regarding President Obama’s new plans for the provision of contraception, I’ve heard radio commentators and read news reports about the importance of conscience, namely that certain religious groups should be able to refrain from providing contraception coverage because they principally disagree with it. At the state level this week (New Hampshire) regarding HB 1424-FN, I’ve heard elected officials describe the importance of allowing parents to remove their child from any school or curriculum to which they are conscientiously opposed. I’m left wondering just what the role of personal conscience is when it comes to private (here the health or family planning of a woman and her partner) and public benefits (here the success of schools that are democratically run and their missions).

Surely we value the principled stands of many people who disagree with the dictates or actions of large or powerful groups. In my mind I quickly think of conscientious objectors to war as well as the many Amish families near where I was raised in Ohio. Even though I served my eight years as a military spouse and even though I intentionally chose to leave my rural farming community, I can understand and respect many of their beliefs and can understand why they might resist certain public policies or educational practices. I can allow that my views and the dominant ways of America should not be forced upon everyone in all cases. But how do we, as the public tasked with protecting the weak and vulnerable amongst us (whether that be some women susceptible to significant dangers posed by unwanted pregnancy or the children of parents who shelter them from public school teachings), decide whose conscientiousness is worth accepting and whose is not? What basis do we use to determine the legitimacy of one’s principles of disagreement and whether being forced to violate those principles is of a significant hardship? When, if ever, is it in the best interest of a person to have their conscience intentionally challenged?

HB 1424 potentially enshrines the protection of parents’ conscience into public school policy in my state, regardless of the justification for parents’ views or discussion of the impact on their children. I’m thinking hard about just what parents might object to (perhaps the teaching of evolution or the absence of Bible study—as indicated by two other bills currently under debate in New Hampshire). And I’m thinking about criteria that might help public schools determine instances when those parents’ views should be accepted and when they hould be denied. I welcome thoughts from others who might be considering similar situations.

Your Father Will Not be Entered into the Father of the Year Contest

It's February. If you have a child in Chicago Public Schools, this means that you are now partway through the long stretch of winter weeks with more days off than you'd ever imagined possible. Fear not, though. There's a heart-lifting early February tradition too: the Illinois Fatherhood Initiative "What My Father Means to Me" Essay Contest. Here's how it works: sponsored by the Illinois Fatherhood Initiative, it asks K-12 schoolchildren to write an essay about a Father, Grandfather, Stepfather or -- in case all of those options are delinquent, nonexistent, or otherwise unworthy of an essay -- a Father-Figure. In return for participation, each child gets a voucher for 2 Chicago White Sox tickets. If Mom, Grandma, etc. wants to come, she'll have to pay her own way, though. This is about fatherhood, not family.

You'd hope that every kid in Chicago would be able to identify at least a father-figure, even if it is Lovie Smith or Rahm Emanuel, but, heading off the desperate emotions of a child who has not even that, the official contest essay form offers an alternative. "If you do not want to write about one of the four categories listed above, don't feel bad! Instead, tell IFI what qualities would make 'My Ideal Dad.' Put an X here ___ if you are writing about 'My Ideal Dad.'" But caution: if you had hopes of attending the White Sox game with pop, grandpa, or your basketball coach, do not put an X here. As the form continues, "Please note: If you choose this option, your father, grandfather, etc. will not be entered into the Father of the Year Contest."

Lest you go away thinking that men get off easy here -- free White Sox tickets, and all they had to do was not be so terrible that they got replaced by imaginary dad! -- read on. A page is provided for the K-12 student, followed by a response section for Father/Father-Figure Response, called: "My Reaction to this Essay," or "The Behavior I Intend to Change is." Every year when my daughter brings this home, I use it as a legitimate opportunity to make some suggestions to my husband. "How about 'I will stop leaving banana peels on the coffee table,'" I helpfully suggest. Or, "I will not eat the rest of the cookies without first asking whether anyone else wants one?" In response, my husband facetiously proposes more demanding aims: "No more than one six pack of beer on weeknights, and I will only smoke when standing at least 25 feet from the door."

February is also, of course, Black History month. Next month is Women's History Month. Essay contests like this one, though, remind us that messages about race and gender extend throughout the school year. "What My Father Means to Me" gives my husband and me the giggles every February as we compose our own imaginary responses (and, I'll add, a rush of love when we read my daughter's actual response, which this year included lines like "When my sister tackles me, he says STOP and helps me get my sister off me. . . This makes me feel very happy inside my heart"), but the implicit messages it offers children are troubling. The contest simultaneously tells kids that some fathers are great and that overall men are still pigs. What CPS implicitly says about fathers: they might be ok, but quite likely they're not, and even if they are, they're still not ideal. If you insist on the ideal dad, well, kid, you're going to that White Sox game on your own. As for race, the National Center for Fathering website offers special links for dads in different "situations", including "urban dad." There is no link for "suburban dad."

The incessant backpedaling (if not father, then stepdad, and if not stepdad, pretend dad; if dad is a lemon, then make lemonade with promises of self-improvement; and in the end you get the White Sox tickets no matter how poor your showing because our expectations were pretty low anyway) stands in distinct contrast to the other school-sponsored performance of fatherhood scheduled for February: the "Father/Daughter Dance." (Need I add that, in the most segregated city in the US, my daughter's school is mostly White, and situated in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood where houses now sell for prices only two-parent families are likely to afford?) At the bus stop in the morning, a mother innocently asked my husband whether he was going. He was not going, he said, because he did not think it made sense to protect his little girl from early sexualization by dolling her up and taking her out on a date, and he found all the "promise keepers" associations really disturbing. When he recounted this conversation, I asked him if he really used the word "sexualization" at the bus stop, and he said yes, and that's what you get for sending your kids to school with the daughter of professors. I did not ask him to reform his behavior.

I wanted to post last month about the Girl Scouts policy of full inclusion for transgender children, but I couldn't think of anything to say except "Hooray for Girl Scouts!" In light of the fact that a young friend of mine left school in tears yesterday because, with two moms, she couldn't go to the Father/Daughter dance, I'll say this: our schools should show commitment to reform of gender stereotypes at least as courageously as the Girl Scouts. No back-pedaling. To win those baseball tickets, or better yet a box of Thin Mints, commitment to improve expected by Monday.

Fifth Anniversary Issue of the Journal of Educational Controversy Now Online

We are pleased to announce the publication of our Fifth Anniversary Issue of the Journal of Educational Controversy on the theme, “The Education and Schools our Children Deserve,” co-edited with Susan Donnelly, head of the Whatcom Day Academy. Readers will see many innovative approaches and some unique use of multimedia throughout the issue.

http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/CEP/eJournal/v006n001/

This issue is dedicated to Alfie Kohn, whose book, The Schools our Children Deserve, was the inspiration for the controversy we posed. Mr. Kohn wrote the prologue for the issue in which he reflects on the years since the publication of The Schools our Children Deserve and the need more than ever to be asking what kind of schools our children still deserve.

The issue is divided into three sections.

Section one is a series of articles written by distinguished scholars in response to the controversial scenario (see below) posed for the issue. Authors come at it from different perspectives and with different disciplinary tools, but together they form a vital chorus of important voices that look at “the education and schools our children deserve” from outside the dominant discourse that frames today’s political debates. Check out the interesting article on John Dewey by Mary Finn, entitled, "Dewey and an "Organizing Approach to Teaching."

Section two is an “In the News” section. Here we took a very controversial issue in the news, namely, the Arizona legislation to ban ethnic studies in the schools. Under the actual legislation that our readers can read in its entirety, we published an article from the director of the school district that was under attack. Augustine Romero tells his own story about the events that took place in Arizona’s Tucson Unified School District in his article, “The Hypocrisy of Racism: Arizona's Movement towards State-Sanctioned Apartheid.”

Section three is our attempt to give readers an idea of what a “school meant for children” would look like. This section embeds 23 videos of actual school classrooms in a multi-media article written by the head of the school, Susan Donnelly. The Educational Institute for Democratic renewal, that houses the Journal of Educational Controversy, has partnered with the school, the Whatcom Day Academy, as part of a network of schools started by John Goodlad called the National League of Democratic Schools.

The controversy addressed in the issue is:

The politicizing of education at the national level has centered on issues of standards, accountability, global competitiveness, national economic growth, low student achievement on worldwide norms, and federally mandated uniformity. There has been little discussion of the public purposes of our schools or what kind of education is necessary for an individual’s development and search for a meaningful life. There is a paucity of ideas being discussed at the national level around topics such as: how school practices can be aligned with democratic principles of equity and justice; how school practices can promote the flourishing of individual development as well as academic achievement; what skills and understandings are needed for citizens to play a transformative role in their society. Without conversation at this deeper level about the fundamental purposes of education, we cannot develop a comprehensive vision of the kinds of schools our children deserve. We invite authors to contribute their conceptions of the kind of education our children deserve and/or the kinds of schools that serve the needs of individuals and of a democratic society.

The Journal of Educational Controversy is expanding its pool of reviewers. For consideration, e-mail a letter of interest and vita to cep-ejournal@wwu.edu

Arizona’s Ban on Ethnic Studies: The Latest Battleground over Ideology, Power, and Voice

The recent dismantling of the Mexican American Studies Program in Tucson, Arizona has less to do with facts over a highly successful thirteen year old curriculum taught in the Tucson Unified School District and more to do with ideological dominance and power over whose voices will be heard in a democracy.

In response to the long historical failure of the public schools to raise academic achievement and reduce the dropout rates of students of color, the Tucson Unified School District created a Mexican American studies program that would be more culturally responsive and socially relevant to the needs of the large population of Latino students in the district. By all accounts, the program has been highly successful. Readers can go to the Save Ethnic Studies website for details about audits on the program’s effectiveness. In 2010, in a highly charged political environment, the Arizona State Legislature passed HB 2281 banning any program that “prohibits a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that: promote the overthrow of the United States government, promote resentment toward a race or class of people, are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group, advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” (Arizona Revised Statute § 15-112, 2010)

Despite the state’s own commissioned study that showed the Mexican American Studies Program fully complied with the law and had produced significant results in student achievement, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal , nevertheless, continued his pressure to suspend the program. In January of this year, faced with a multimillion dollar reduction in state aid as a penalty, the Tucson School Board voted 4-1 to dismantle the program. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is now considering a suit that was brought by students and teachers. The court found, however, that the teachers do not have standing but that the suit by students could continue. Teachers have set up a website, Save Ethnic Studies, where readers can follow the progress of the case, donate to the cause, and sign a petition.

The struggle in Arizona goes to the heart of democracy. As U.S. Rep. Raul M. Grijalva says, “This legislation against diversity might be focused on Tucson, but it has significant ramifications across the country.” (Biggers, 2011) It raises questions about who will have a voice and how that voice will be exercised. It asks whose history should be taught and how it should be portrayed. Ultimately, it raises questions about truth. Do we betray our students by presenting only a sanitized account of our history; do we pretend that this nation has never failed to live up to its ideals; do we continue to suppress voices that have been historically silenced, or more often, co-opted and appropriated by the dominant discourse. Or do we allow and encourage alternative narratives in a more inclusive democratic conversation. Public education is at the heart of these questions.

As teachers were ordered to box the censored books for storage in the Textbook Depository, one cannot help but wonder what messages were being sent by a political authority that was supposedly concerned about not promoting ethnic resentment. For young people whose encounter with these books led to self discovery, positive images of Latino identity, and transformative knowledge and action, the State’s actions must surely have been traumatizing and a lesson in the very oppression and hegemony that often defined the social conditions of their communities.

References

Biggers, J. (2011). Arizona's Ethnic Studies Ban Has National Ramifications, Warns U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, HuffPost, Posted: 5/11/11 11:00 PM ET. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/arizonas-ethnic-studies-b_b_860860.html on January 21, 2012.

Prohibited Courses and Classes; Enforcement. AZ Rev. Stat. §15-112 (2010) Retrieved from azleg.gov.

For more insights into this issue, I invite readers to visit the upcoming issue of our electronic journal, the Journal of Educational Controversy (Volume 6 Number 1) and read “The Hypocrisy of Racism: Arizona's Movement towards State-Sanctioned Apartheid” by Augustine F. Romero, Director of Student Equity and Co-Founder of the Social Justice Project, Tucson Unified School District, Arizona.