Reflections on Harriet Ball, Teaching, and Teacher Education

          

            Go to YouTube and type in “Harriet Ball.”  You’ll find three or four short clips on this wonderful Houston teacher, including a tribute (she died in 2011) from KIPP charter school founders Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin.  It seems that in 1992 when the young Feinberg and Levin—fresh Teach For America recruits—landed in Houston, ready, in Feinberg’s words, “to change the world by lunchtime,” they didn’t have an easy go of it.  As Feinberg put it, he lost control of his class by lunchtime and didn’t regain it until Christmas.

            Harriet Ball was teaching down the hall, and Feinberg and Levin found her, and had the good sense to latch on to her.  Of Levin, Ms. Ball says, “he was hungry.”  This short film is a sweet tribute, clearly heart-felt.  “She was one of the most remarkable teachers I ever met,” observes Levin.  The duo named the charter school they went on to found, the Knowledge Is Power Program, drawing on a line from one of her chants about the power of reading.  Today KIPP is the nation’s largest network of charter schools.

            This tribute sparks for me so many issues related to contemporary school reform: from the nature of teaching and the many qualities it takes to do it well to the incessant drumbeat of criticism directed at teachers and the institutions that educate them.  Harriet Ball is remembered for inspiring Feinberg and Levin to start KIPP, and for the songs and chants she devised to help her students learn the metric system, state capitals, and a lot else.  But if you view those clips of Ms. Ball and read what you can find written about her when she died, you get the sense of so much more: of someone with a keen intelligence about children, pedagogical creativity, humor, an in-her-bones understanding of race and social class, a deep commitment to those students in her charge and belief in their ability, and the kind of authority that emerges from all the above.  In general, education policy and mainstream reform do not address these qualities.  This is an unfortunate irony, given KIPP’s iconic status in school reform circles.

            One of the themes you will hear from various mainstream education reformers is that there is a “talent gap” in the teaching profession, that we need a better quality of students to go into teaching, and that education programs need to be more selective.  Of course I, and everybody I know in education, wants to recruit talented, hard-working young people into the profession, and I certainly have a list of things I’d like to see happen in teacher education—and in some education programs these are happening: a better blending of research and practice on how people learn, for example, or better methods of guidance and supervision as novice teachers move into classrooms. 

            What is worrisome is that in the drive for improvement, reformers can narrowly define “quality” as, for example, the pedigree of a prospective teacher’s undergraduate institution, or the selectivity of that teacher’s education program.  We need to throw a wide net in recruiting teachers, tapping a range of backgrounds and talents.  Those who advocate alternative teacher recruitment and training programs also want to cast a wide net, though their goal is often to recruit people from other professions and from business and management backgrounds.  This is certainly worth doing, but if you also want to draw in young people from low-income households, or who are the first in their families to attend college, or who represent a broad range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds, then you need to draw from a broad range of institutions.

            Which takes me back to Harriet Ball.  The obituaries mention that she got her degree from Huston-Tillotson University, a small Historically Black College in Austin, Texas.  The website for Huston-Tillotson notes that in 2010, the university had a 90% acceptance rate—the lack of selectivity bemoaned by critics of our teaching force and of the schools that produce them.  But in fact a lot of very good teachers come from such institutions.  A while back, I went through two books that profile first-rate teaching: my Possible Lives and Karen Chenowith’s How It’s Being Done.  I also looked at the Council of Chief State School Officer’s National Teacher of the Year Program.  Only a handful of these top-flight teachers got their bachelors degrees from elite private institutions or from flagship public universities.  A number hailed from state universities.  And a considerable number came from small, local colleges with teacher education programs.  More recently, David Kirp found a similar pattern in the admirable district he chronicles in Improbable Scholars.

            One of the things that I witnessed as I travelled across the country to write Possible Lives was the significant role played by local small colleges in semi-rural and rural areas—in some cases, the colleges were tiny satellite campuses of a state college or university hundreds of miles away.  These schools had to be open to their communities to survive.  In turn, these institutions were often the only avenue available for locals to attend college and enter teaching.  Finances, family obligations, cultural norms—all sorts of factors made it nearly impossible for them to go away to college.  Similar factors sometimes come into play in urban settings where more choice appears possible, but might in fact not be.

            Recently, the National Council on Teacher Quality—an organization critical of teacher education programs—issued a report that, as its president said, was produced to reveal the “widespread malpractice” of such programs.  In a nutshell, the Council’s analysts relied primarily on syllabi, course descriptions, and other program materials from 1200 undergraduate and graduate programs and rated these programs on a scale of 0 to 4.  The analysis, therefore, was built mostly on one kind of information—that which could be gleaned from documents—and was further limited by the fact that many schools chose not to participate, given the Center’s anti-ed school orientation.  So the analysts, I presume, had to use what they could find on the Internet and other sources.  In the end, they were not able to rate a number of programs on all their categories, but did issue only four top ratings out of the 1200 and, on the other end, gave over 150 programs a zero rating and marked them with a “consumer alert” warning.  This alert, according to the Council president, would caution prospective students about attending these programs and warn district administrators about hiring the programs’ graduates.  The programs, therefore, would have to change or be driven out of business.

            There is so much to say about the conceptual and methodological problems with this report, and fortunately a lot of it is being said, as an Internet search reveals.  Of course, if a program is terrible, it should be put on notice, but one thing I kept thinking about as I read through the report was the arrogance in assuming that some analyst in Washington, D.C.—the location of the Center—could pass damning judgment on a program in, for example, East Tennessee or Central Oklahoma or Northern California without ever visiting it, interviewing faculty, students, and district administrators, or observing graduates of its program as they teach.

            Among its many flaws, the Center’s report represents the kind of narrowness in defining teaching and teacher education that concerned me earlier.

            How about this? What if all the philanthropies that supported the questionable report from the Council on Teacher Quality contributed an equal amount to a less partisan organization to study excellent teachers who come from modest backgrounds and attend their local (often less selective) colleges?  How did they get so good?  What did they bring with them and what did their programs nurture?  How can we recruit more like them?  And while we’re at it, let’s throw a few bucks of that philanthropic funding their way, for many find it hard to make ends meet, yet regularly spend their own money to make wondrous things happen in their classrooms.

You can share this blog post on Facebook, Twitter, or Google reader through the "Share" function located at the top- left hand corner of blog. 

An Interview on Public Education Under Siege

This interview follows up on my last blog post on Public Education Under Siege, edited by Michael B. Katz and me.  It was conducted by Joanie Harmon for Ampersand, the on-line magazine of the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies—though this version is slightly adbridged.

***

“We absolutely need to address the terrible quality of education that many poor and vulnerable populations of students receive. This has to be a national priority.  But to achieve any level of equality for these children, we need to understand the big picture of our schools, a picture that includes reformers’ concerns about assessment, teacher quality, and teacher education, as well as the many other social and economic factors that affect a child’s performance in school.”

Public Education Under Siege seeks to fill in the gaps in the mainstream view of school reform, among them, topics that are typically not addressed by government, philanthropies who invest in education, or even high-profile figures in the reform movement.  Thus the book includes historians, experts on learning, public policy scholars, teacher educators, and political economists and sociologists.

“So, for example, some of the [book’s] contributors focus on the significant inequality of funding for schools, the political and legal history of that funding inequality, and the way true school reform will be stymied until we can create new ways to frame this issue,” says Rose. “And some of the contributors focus on other kinds of inequality: on segregation, for example, and the many subtle and not-so-subtle ways that residential and educational segregation is maintained, with negative consequences for low-income children of color.”

“Yet another manifestation of inequality is found in the connection between race, social class, and the criminalization of children, for there are significant disparities in the punishment—and legal ramifications—meted out to kids in poorer verses wealthier schools. These and other manifestations of inequality aren’t part of our mainstream discussion of school reform, yet they have an effect on how kids do in school.”

 “A common retort from many reformers to criticism of their approach is that the critics are defenders of the status quo,” he states. “But, in fact, many of those who have concerns with mainstream reform raise legitimate concerns about the way the school curriculum has been narrowed: for example, social studies, the arts, and humanities trimmed back, the inadequacies of standardized tests to get at the full scope of learning, the functional, even punitive, nature of the education that results from such policies, and so on.  Our contributors bring a number of perspectives to the current reform scene, which, we think, broadens our understanding of the limits of current reform, and, more importantly, broadens our understanding of education.”

Rose notes that the focus on economic austerity and rising national debt has resulted in attempts by political conservatives to change the definition of education from a public to a private good, in light of the current cuts to social programs.

“The notion that schooling is something that benefits all is not as prominent as it has been at other times in our history,” Rose says.  “I think that certain business leaders, for example, are very much in support of education because they connect it to workforce development. Although, those same leaders are fighting higher taxes, minimum wage laws, and other initiatives that would affect the quality of education. Just think of what it would mean for primary grade achievement for all children to have adequate eye and hearing care.”

Rose says that while it may be impossible to depoliticize education, the argument made by liberal, centrist, and conservative economists alike for educating the nation’s youth – and future workforce – is watertight with benefits to all sectors of society.

Rose cites the example of California, a state whose economic straits were historically preceded by an exemplary vision to educate its citizens during the post-World War II era of economic growth. During that time, he says, California was highly ranked nationwide in per pupil spending, and a state master plan was put into place to ensure a quality education from kindergarten through college.

“Part of the rationale was an understanding of the public dimension of education,” Rose says. “A robust education system has private benefit for people, but it also has a significant public benefit, both social and economic.”

“Schools aren’t isolated institutions.  Mainstream reform tends to view schools narrowly, considering their immediate bureaucracies, the unions that some of their teachers belong to, and the schools of education that certify those teachers.  But the influences that affect schools go beyond unions and education schools. Schools exist in history, and a social and political context, and they’re powerfully affected by the economy in the communities that surround them.  If we don’t understand and respond to these multiple influences, then we won’t get far in improving the schools that are the focus of contemporary reform.”

You can share this blog post on Facebook, Twitter, or Google reader through the "Share" function located at the top- left hand corner of blog.