| Who I am: Chris Lehmann
What I do: Principal of the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia, PA (Opening 9/06). What I did: Technology Coordinator / English Teacher / Girls Basketball Coach / Ultimate Coach at the Beacon School, a fantastic progressive public high school in Manhattan. Email: chris [at] practicaltheory [dot] org. Subscribe to Practical TheoryCreative CommonsBlog AdministrationSyndicate This Blog |
Sunday, January 6. 2008What Is Public Education?[Post that got me thinking: Some New Years Dreaming by Will Richardson On Leaving Teaching to Become a Teacher by Clay Burrell.] In a provocative post, Will questions the role of schools in today's society, and he quotes quotes Clay Burrell who writes: More and more I wonder: is school a good place for teachers who want to make a difference in the lives of their students, and to the future of the world? Is there a way to leave the daily farce of gradebooks, attendance sheets, tests, corporate and statist curriculum, homework assignments, grade-licking college careerist “students” (and parents), fear of parents and administrators, and fear of inconvenient socio-political truths - and at the same time, to make a far more meaningful impact on the lives of the young?…I’m not sure how much longer I want to work for schools. I’d so much rather teach. And in general, a lot of Clay's writing these days is showing an incredible dissatisfaction with the structure of schools these days. And perhaps it is time for Clay to leave the formal classroom. Certainly, given his comments later on down in Will's post, he sounds like someone whose time in the classroom is done:
Certainly, if this is what Clay is thinking and feeling, then he's probably right to think that the time has come to leave the classroom. Fortunately, there are a lot of places that Clay can find the kind of learning environments he wants. Informal learning environments have every bit as long a history as formal schools. Places like church groups, the Boys and Girls Clubs and youth programs such as PACTS (run by SLA partner, The Franklin Institute.) Informal educational spaces are incredibly important, and someone with Clay's passion and idealism would probably do an incredible amount of good in a place like that. Will, in his post, talked a lot about his vision for a school for his kids:
Interestingly, this sounds a lot like the free school movement as typified by the British Summerhill School and still found in America at places like the Brooklyn Free School. This is part of why I think it's incredibly important for all of us who are arguing for reform and thinking about 21st Century schools to really immerse ourselves in the history of school and school reform, because change is happening right now, and we need to understand what has come before us and what still exists around us if we are to be advocates for innovation, we owe it to our kids to be scholars as well as activists. But all of this also got me thinking about what we should and shouldn't expect our schools -- especially our public schools -- to be. (And I know that Clay isn't a public school teacher, but that's my lens....) There are some things that we have to deal with, and they can be difficult, especially if we hold onto an idealistic vision of what we want our schools to be for every child. 1) School is compulsory. Something I realized early in my teaching career is that my very best teaching happened at 6:30 in the morning on the basketball court and Ultimate field. I realized that if I could get kids where they wanted to be, then we really could do something amazing together. I knew that the greatest impact I had on kids was with the kids on my teams. So much of my time in my "regular" classes was spent trying to recreate the feeling of 6:30 am. But there's nothing wrong with accepting that school is compulsory, I think. We have decided as a society that this is something we value and need. And I agree with that, but it also means that there will be plenty of times that your classroom won't be the first place many of your kids want to be. I used to say to my classes in September of every year, "Just so you know, on a beautiful fall day, I'd rather be outside too, but since we have to be here, let's pledge to really make the most of every moment we have together." It was honest and upfront, and it did away with the false notion that my classroom was always going to be fun or the place we always wanted to be. Instead, what I always hoped for was that our time together would have meaning. And I'm o.k. -- in fact I'm more than o.k. -- with compulsory education. I'm even o.k. with making kids take several years of science and math and history and English. I don't think most fourteen year old kids know what they most want, and I think that, at its best, a "comprehensive" (ha!) education does two really important things: 1) It exposes kids to a wide variety of subjects in the hopes that kids can find things for further study later on down the line that they may not have otherwise been exposed to. 2) (And this is the more important of the two) It gives kids different lenses on the world. I used to say that we read novels because every book we read teaches us to see the world through a different set of eyes. As an administrator, I've realized that every class -- not just English -- should do that. Our kids today need to be able to see the world through a historical lens, a scientific lens, a mathematical lens. They need to mix and match those lenses which is why interdisciplinary study is so important, and they need to be able to apply those lenses which is why project-based learning where kids can apply skills and knowledge is so very important. 2) Our schools serve as a sorting mechanism for college and life after high school. I hate this part too, but this one falls for me under the whole "We cannot be revolutionaries at our kids' expense" credo. Grades, as much as they are a construct, matter. This goes back to the whole "Two Schools" idea that I wrote about a while back... as much as we want our schools to merely be cathedrals of learning, that's not all they are. They also are mechanisms for entry into the world after adolescence. This can be painful and dangerous, and it's part of our job as educators to deal with this reality as openly, transparently and kindly as possible, but they are there, and if we are to work within this system, we have to deal with it. 3) Our schools will always be flawed because we are flawed. This one may be the hardest part. Schools are made of people, and you put a group of people together and sooner or later, we're going to have to realize that we don't all pull in the same direction all the time, we don't always live up to our best ideals, and we say and do things -- kids and adults -- that we regret later. There will always be some teachers who are better than others. Kids will always have some moments in schools they don't like more than others -- just like adults have in their lives. Learning that sometimes it's about punching the clock and doing the work we don't want to do isn't a bad thing to learn. I love teaching, I love being a principal, I love being a father, but it doesn't mean I love every aspect of these things. Learning how to do things we don't love doing is a great lesson to learn in life. 4) Our public school system is -- at its best -- designed to do the most good for the most number of kids. The public school system -- something I still believe must be the necessary backbone of a healthy democracy -- is designed to maximize learning for the most number of kids. The outlier kids (Albert Einstein, as mentioned in Clay's comments, for example) will always struggle in a system that has to attempt to educate just about everyone. If I had to say one thing to Will and Clay, it would be this: We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we can only see the problems in our schools without seeing the incredible good teachers do every day, we've lost sight of what happens every day. Public schooling is probably a terrible way to educate a society -- unless you compare it to just every other option. (Thank you, Mr. Churchill.) Even at its best, it's a flawed system. It just beats the alternative. None of this is to say that we should be satisfied with where we are in public education today. NCLB is a monstrosity that is a wrecking ball for our public system. We have too many big schools that are totally impersonal. We have too many places where student voices aren't valued... and too many places where teachers' voices aren't valued. And we have too many places where learning is measured by a score on a test, rather than by the authentic work of the kids in the school. I recently read "Stupidity and Tears: Teaching and Learning in Troubled Times" (Herbert R. Kohl) and it is a must read for everyone who is frustrated in public education today, because Kohl gives us language for our anger. But in the end, Kohl is still working within the system to create change, and that is where I think we need to focus our energies as well. We have a lot of work in front of us, of that there can be no question. But if we do not temper our idealism with a healthy dose of pragmatism, we will allow the problems to overwhelm us, and we will lose the ability to see the good that we do every day -- and the good we can do if we are willing to continue to try to reform the system in which we work. Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
This is another example of the type of writing that you do Chris that is always so enheartening to me. It is human and real. You always tell us that it is OK for us not be perfect and for us to to be doing the best we can in the institutions we have and still push for change and improvement. You are an optimist and a realist at the same time. This reminds me of the post you wrote some time last month about your struggles with being an administrator. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.
I'll echo Clarence. Having spent time with you, I know how passionate you are about providing a quality experience for students, one that prepares them for life in the real world, one that challenges them to be better. There are few that would argue schools need fixing, the current dilemma is figuring out how and developing some common ground, but as you say that will always be flawed, so get used it and figure out how to work within that.
I sat here fascinated by your four points that we have to deal with about schools. I'm okay with three of them, even if I don't think they always work as well as one would hope. But, the point about our schools being a sorting mechanism pains me. I understand why it is true, at least to some extent, but I have trouble accepting that it has to be that way. It's possible that this stems from the fact that I am an elementary school teacher and I might feel differently if I worked at the high school level. But I'm not currently convinced that our schools should be sorting kids or that we do it very well. As a fact about schools it seems almost at odds with your fourth about schools doing the most good for the most number of kids.
Clearly this is something I will continue to think about for a while. "Even at its best, [public education] is a flawed system. It just beats the alternative."
--You mention Summerhill and the Free Schools movement (I would add the Sudbury School and the German system, in which students are given the exposure to "comprehensive" curriculum earlier, and allowed to specialize earlier, to the list. I suspect most other European countries offer alternatives to compete with the American system you characterize as the (flawed) best. No time for more, gotta run to school. I would add, though, that I'm inviting positive thinking about education by posting open threads about, yes, pragmatic alternatives. Without trying to sound unfair, is there more disjunctive, either/or logic in the framing of this post than the topic warrants? Clay,
Where I don't think I meant this as an either/or model is that I don't think there is one US model. After all, SLA, in many ways, doesn't look like most other high schools. And I don't think the comprehensive model is the only model we have at our disposal. This is why I think it's really important that we have a sense of history that I often feel is lacking from our blog discussions. What I think is best is that we, as a society, have decided that school is mandatory for kids. I don't want to see us dismantle the public education system, and I think there are more and more people who want to do that in America. (I'll start with the folks on the right who have taken to calling our public schools "government" schools.) I think we can look both backward and forward and imagine many different models of schools, from free schools to the Japanese model to Sudbury to the good ol' fashioned progressive school. And, as an urban educator, I think one of the benefits to urban education is that you can have a system where all those models are welcome and kids can find the learning model that fits them best. NYC does that well. Boston is trying. Seattle is trying. Philly, in its own fashion, is trying. But for me, we have to remember the massive, idealistic goal of our public schools, as we try to ensure a quality education for a nation, and we have to remember the nobility -- and extreme difficulty -- of that goal. And, for me, that idea of formal education comes with some positives and some negatives. We had a meeting today with folks from one of our informal education partners, and they said, "You know... for years, folks in informal education have viewed schools as the 'bad places.' SLA breaks that boundary. I take a lot of pride in that, but I also recognize that we are the ones who have to give grades and make kids do the work they often don't want to do. I'm o.k. with it, because I think we do it thoughtfully, with a purpose and with compassion and care. And that should be the hallmark of every school. Chris,
Back in the mid-80s when I was in college studying to be an elementary teacher, I found many of my college of education classes to be not very useful. My reading course taught us how to use a basal. My intro course taught us how to write on a chalkboard. These scintillating courses were at a Big 10 University with a highly ranked college of ed. I attended those classes by day, and read Herb Kohl, Alfie Kohn, and the Open School Reader. My early teaching career was a frustrated attempt to merge these two ideas. I had the great fortune to teach at an alternative public school in the pre-NCLB days. I was a new teacher with lots to learn, teaching with a largely inexperienced staff. We made mistakes, but in retrospect, that was some of my best teaching to date. When I returned to the US in 2005 and went back into the public system, but not that same school, I was saddened, near despair over the lives of my low SES students, the terrible effect of NCLB, and in general, the way that even with a really good principal, school was turning into a place that none of us wanted to be, student, teacher or parent. No room to follow our own passions. No room for anything that isn't on The Test (and in Minnesota, we have state benchmark tests AND NCLB, so all we do now is test and prep to test.) Thank you for this post. By clearly stating these four points, you help temper my inherent idealism with reality in a way that lets me keep moving forward. It also keep me motivated to not settle for this test-driven thing we are calling school, but reminds me that the education utopia that keeps beckoning me, needs to be tempered with reality. What an inspiring post - and very timely! As an administrator who is trying to determine how I can best serve public education - which is where my passion truly lies - your optimistic, yet realistic outlook was exactly what I needed! I have spent quite a bit of time recently (unfortunately, much of it at an institution of higher learner in a leadership preparation program) hearing about the ultimate demise of public education. As much as I can fully see the flaws and challenges in the current system, I am not ready to throw in the towel or say there is no hope . . . yet is getting more and more difficult to hear the voice of optimism. I know I need to do a better job being that voice in my corner of the world. Thanks for modeling that so well!!
Thank you for this post, Chris.
I look forward to seeing you at Educon 2.0. I hope that the session I am facilitating, Claiming What We Imagine, at Educon 2.0 challenges educators to think about the issues that Clay, Will and you discuss. I invite everyone who reads this post ancomments to join us on Saturday afternoon, 1.26.08, not sure of time yet: Twitter, Skype and Ustream.tv. Should be fun! Regards, Dennis Richards I still go back to a simple premise -- something you and I talked about in detail while working in Oregon last year -- after reading pieces like what you just posted:
The last 150+ years of public education have been an extraordinary success. Given the risk/gamble of educating every single citizen in a rapidly growing country on the verge of the Industrial Revolution, one would be hard pressed to have guaranteed 'back then' that we'd be sitting where we are now. Yes, we have problems. Yes, any system is inherently flawed. And yes, we must continue to do better and better for our students, our colleagues, and our communities. But we must also recognize what a radical success the entire premise of free public education. So that we can be in a position to argue its flaws from the 'comfort' of our own educated perspectives. Even if it is flawed by the very nature of being a 'human' venture at its core. Your words continue to stir the pot, my friend. Thank you for having such a voice. And sharing it. See you in a matter of days. I've been thinking about your post frequently since reading it before work today. It's after work now, and though I'm tired, I'll try say what I want.
First, I'm an international school teacher, so the thrust of my "leaving teaching to become a teacher" post had nothing to do with the US or its public school system. It had more to do with how "teaching" is defined in this institution called a mainstream "school." Second, that small post spun in a million directions in the comment conversations on that post and on Will's riff on it. In the surely 100 comments between the two posts combined, there was much back-and-forth and probing of the question of "to bail water or jump ship." Out of all those 100 comments, the one you blockquote suffers from being taken out of context. Your implicit interpretation of that comment seems to stress the first clause (the negative "As a high school teacher, I’m hard-pressed to see anything schools do that really are good for the majority of students"), while I would stress the second: "-- at least that couldn't be done outside of schools." It was a response to a fairly unsupported "schools do a lot of good" comment. (I'll avoid the desire to rebut your further characterization that I've been extraordinarily negative on my blog, etc, because anybody can go and see the mix for themselves, and that there's much that's critical there, and much that's constructive and visionary, in a modest but boundaries-pushing way. I will say, though, that I recently toyed with the idea of changing my tag-line to, "*Somebody* had to say it.") Whether I stay or go, or create something different, is a side-note. What's more interesting is the volume of people for whom the sentiment resonated. I'm a teacher. I respect what the best in our profession are trying to do against all the odds. I definitely sympathize, as a fellow-traveler - and remember, I have it easy as an international school teacher making far smaller class sizes and better pay than my compatriots back in the States. But I need more convincing that because public schools were mandated in the long-ago, that's still the best model now; and that if mandatory education is the best model, that a prescribed, "comprehensive" curriculum is still the way (and your concession in your comment that there are alternatives is noted); and that the system (thank you Bentham and Mill?) "maximizes learning for the maximum number of 'kids'". I also wonder if those basics can't be taught far earlier, and the specialization begin earlier too. And the idea of ending high school earlier for an earlier entry into the lifelong project-based learning called adulthood is gaining more and more traction in some mainstream circles. I'm not saying I know that any of these are untrue; I am, though, honestly saying that I'm skeptical. Still, though, your comments about project-based learning, the necessity of learning basic skills like reading, math, history, science, and developing a general pleasure in questions and searches for answers (problems/solutions ditto) - no argument there. (Wait, are public schools teaching science any more? See my latest posts on evolution in America, and the data. But that's not for here.) And your concerns about democracy? I share them. And I fear the consequences for the least privileged if/when public schools continue to decline and lose support. It's just that the least privileged seem to be suffering dire consequences already, from the system they're in right now. I don't know where that leaves anything. I do know that I fear there's an equal case for being "a conservative at our 'kids' ' expense" too*, though - the very idea of public schooling was, after all, a revolutionary one when it was new, so that's a double-edged argument to use against new experiments - especially if they're done with care. Interesting world. It's so ironic that the posts you sweat over land with a thud, but the ones you dash off from the heart in a moment of expressive need create storms. scratches head Anyway. On it goes. -- *And that's not leveled at you. I know very little about SLA, but gather you've achieved things quite impressive there. Chris: not to blatantly advertise my own blog, but I was struck that we blogged on the same topic, with some of the same rhetorical points, on the same day. Check it out if you have time.
http://theline.edublogs.org/2008/01/06/in-or-out/ Enjoy your writing very much. Thanks for the erudition and inspiration. Chris, is this one of those blogs that really don't turn into much more than the "good job" type exchanges in the comments? If so, why try to carry on conversations that critically think by leaving comments here?
We hear a lot of celebration about blogging being conversation. Much of the time that claim is overblown idealism. You caricature me in a post. I respond to your logic logically (rather than emotionally, as most of your commenters did). Six days later, no response. Wouldn't you be disappointed too? Clay Clay,
I run a school, I have two small children, I am hosting a conference in two weeks. It's about keeping my head above water right now. But also, I write in my blog as a reflective journal, that's its primary function for me. And here's the thing... the post, while definitely inspired by what you and Will were talking about, wasn't about you. It was about, as you wrote, the larger concern, because there's a lot of talk about how schools are not good places. It made me want to write, so I wrote. And, for the record, I just re-read your last comment. It was really well put and I don't have much to say. Good points. And I'm not sure what you wrote disagrees with anything I wrote. They stand very well side-by-side. Our schools can be good places if we make them good places, but right now, too often they are not. I agree. Your answer is to consider leaving the system to find other ways to do what you do, my answer is to try to change it from within. Two very classic responses. Neither are necessarily right or wrong. They just are. On it goes, as you say. -- Chris Thank you Clay and Chris (where's Will in all this - just reflecting?)
The humanity of your exchange is refreshing. We get emotional, we get upset because we are passionate about the kids, the learning, the leadership and, naturally, about our selves. I'd like to quote Chris: "Your answer is to consider leaving the system to find other ways to do what you do, my answer is to try to change it from within. Two very classic responses." I think both will ultimately fall short of what I imagine for schools: powerful learning experiences for all kids in all classrooms. - Is there a third option we can pursue to claim what we imagine? - Do we need to give into, what Kierkegaard, called the Leap of Faith? http://tinyurl.com/2h4fl9 - Is there a way we can help all our colleagues to see in practice what we imagine? - Whose responsibility is it to change? What do we have to do differently? Is what we have to do a mystery? - What role should students play in this transformation of schools? - Does our future depend on our success? Maybe the question should be if we succeed, how will our future be better? It seems to me the first question is based on fear; the second, I think, inspires hope. See you on Saturday afternoon at Educon 2.0, January 26, 2008 to continue this conversation or join us virtually ~ http://tinyurl.com/2a2h7t Be well. Do good works. See you soon. GK Dennis Chris, when you say: "Our schools will always be flawed because we are flawed," is that all there is? As a teacher who must teach within the conditions created by the decisions of flawed admin., there has to be more to it than that. Could it be that there are a lot of dysfunctional schools because the admin. simply doesn't know what it is doing? I think that goes well beyond flawed.
Chris, your points are well-articulated. I agree, but I had been struggling with how to say what I was thinking. I'm struggling with adding anything new to the conversation because I feel kind of silly just leaving a comment that basically says "Me too!", but there you have it. Me too.
It's all good, Chris. I know I'm snarky sometimes, but passion has its price. Big boys kiss and make up
Dennis, link noted, thanks! I wrote a post on my very new blog that includes my response to a lot of the comments above. Please check it out.
http://mmaloy.wordpress.com/ Add Comment
|
Speaking EngagementsEduCon 2.2 - Jan. 29 - 31, 2010 - Philadelphia, PA
ITSC - February 13 - 14, 2010 - Portland, OR PETE & C - February 23, 2010 - Hershey, PA CUE 2010 - March 3-4, 2010 - Palm Springs, CA Calendar
The Quote File"If God's on our side, he'll stop the next war" QuicksearchArchivesTwit ThisCategoriesEduBlogsDel.icio.us Links
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||













Comments
Sun, 07.02.2010 20:31
I think this is a
question elementary
teachers ask often. We
ask it both because we do
often already [...]
John Patten about EduCon 2.2 Reflections - What Do You Think?
Sun, 07.02.2010 10:17
Ditto! IMHO, this is one
of the
"best-for-the-buck"
things we should
standardize on to improve
[...]
Erika Saunders about EduCon 2.2 Reflections - What Do You Think?
Sat, 06.02.2010 11:54
So simply put; so
powerful in meaning.
"What do you think?"
I'll never forget this
and intent to [...]
Carolyn Foote about EduCon 2.2 Reflections - What Do You Think?
Sat, 06.02.2010 11:10
Funny how these things
all mesh together because
I went to Zac's, iJohn,
and Bud's session on
Caring [...]
Christian Long about EduCon 2.2 Reflections - What Do You Think?
Sat, 06.02.2010 09:42
Chris: Amazing how
gracefully (and
logically) the 'intro' to
we've been working on
together has come [...]