Continued hiatus

Just a note that I've not forgotten about this blog! I have been putting my energy into finishing my dissertation and will return to writing here after my defense.

Civil Disabilities

I spent the morning at the Civil Disabilities Conference here at Penn. Great panelists and intriguing interdisciplinary discussion.

During the third panel Lorella Terzi brought a capabilities perspective to the discussion and the idea of surrogacy was raised as a mechanism to aid in the democratic participation of cognitively disabled individuals (as a way of achieving a valuable functioning). Surrogates could engage on behalf of cognitively disabled individuals in forms of civic participation that are particularly challenging for those individuals - for example deliberative dialogues. This necessarily brought up the issue of representation. Is it possible for surrogates to accurately represent the interests of those they represent?

This perspective allowed me to draw a connection to the work I have been doing in preparing my dissertation proposal. I am trying to understand a process similar to the issue that arises with the surrogate. In my case this is how the interests of the less advantaged are heard and understood by the more advantaged (defining advantage here mainly along lines of class and race, but could include more). Let me be clear, I am in no way suggesting that the more advantaged should serve as surrogates to the less advantaged. Rather, I am suggesting that, in many ways they do, and that this is problematic because of the issues of representation that are raised by the question of surrogacy. This de facto surrogacy arises out of the civic empowerment gap that has been defined by Levinson (2010) and others.

The advantaged in society participate at significanly higher rates in traditionally valuable modes of civic participation (the less advantaged do participate, but the fact that they do not participate as much in ways that are traditionally recognized means that their voice has less purchase in the political arena). Not only does this mean that the interests of the advantaged are given priority in policy, but they also have a disproportionate impact on how the interests of the less advantaged are defined. This occurs both through the advantaged's articulations of their own interests (because the interests of the advantaged are in a dialectical relationship with those of the less advantaged) and through their efforts to "help" the less advantaged. As a result they act as surrogates - through their stronger political voice the advantaged (mis)represent the interests of the less advantaged. For this reason we need to understand how the advantaged come to (mis)understand the interests of the less advantaged. Again, this is not because they should act as surrogates, but that, in many ways, they already do.

Levinson, M. (2010). The Civic Empowerment Gap: Defining the Problem and Locating Solutions. Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth.

Civic implications of changes in the housing market

A growing story in the news has been the continuing decline in the housing market and proposals by congress to place restrictions on mortgages and get rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (e.g. http://tinyurl.com/4ckvcdw) The reports suggest that this could lead to a big change in trends of home ownership. Mortgage applicants might be required to have higher credit scores than are currently required and they might need 10% or even 20% as a down payment. If these changes are enacted, far fewer people will be able to afford a home. Now, I am not certain about the economic impact here – there seem to be decent arguments on both sides. As well, the proposal doesn’t seem completely insane because we should be sure that people who get loans could actually pay them off. But we should also consider the way a change in rates of home ownership could impact civic participation.

The traditional wisdom is that people are more invested in their community if they own their home. They have a personal, financial stake in a property and the community around it. This is a classic response to the tragedy of the commons: ownership creates an incentive to preserve that common resources – in this case the community through participation in that community. When people rent, they have less stake in the space that surrounds them, because the do not have as significant a financial stake. (Of course, they still have some stake in their neighborhood – they still live there).

But that brings us to another potential impact of declining home ownership. If you rent, it is easier to move. If you or your neighbors are always moving it is harder to establish the personal connections (the social capital) that support civic participation.

This might also have an impact on national and state politics as fewer people have incentive to pay attention to legislation that has an impact on real estate. (Again, an incentive will remain because renters are impacted by such legislation, but the connection will be less direct)

We also need to recognize the disproportional way that this will play out across class lines. For some people, putting down 10% is nothing, or achievable within a reasonable amount of time through focused saving. For others it is impossible, despite the possibility that they could afford the mortgage payments. The poorest Americans will be impacted most significantly, and, if, as I suggest above, this will have an impact on the capacity and interest of people to participate in the political system, it will further exacerbate what is already a significant gap in civic participation between the rich and the poor.

I think it would be instructive here to look at comparative cases. Are there examples of countries with low rates of home ownership and high participation? Areas of the country? (I think of NYC where most people are priced out of buying). No matter what, the civic impact of these changes in mortgages should be a part of this dialogue.

South Philly High School

I'm responding to another great Notebook article: http://tinyurl.com/5uzht4y.

Ackerman recently named South Philadelphia High School to the list of new Renaissance Schools - deeming it a failing school in need of restructuring. It was further announced that South Phila HS would become a "Promise Academy". The Notebook article does an excellent job of pointing out the craziness of this decisions. Last year the school experienced significant turmoil and national news attention due to racially motivated fights. As a result of the attention the school received it was discovered that the principal wasn't fully certified. Despite all the chaos, the notebook points out that the new principal and the school community had begun a process of making change. The decision to make South Philly a Promise Academy undercuts any progress that had been made.

All that is in the notebook article. I want to use this example to point out the way Ackerman's strategy runs directly counter to the best research about making positive changes in urban school districts. The research I am referring to is represented in Tony Bryk et al.'s new book "Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago". (I will acknowledge that this research focuses on elementary schools, and that I am applying their findings to a high school, but I will stand behind my assertion that there is some crossover.) In this book, the authors identify 5 "essential supports" necessary for improvement in urban schools. These include: leadership as the driver for change, parent-community-school ties, professional capacity, student-centered learning climate, and instructional guidance. I could break down how many parts of Ackerman's approach do not provide these essential supports - for example how the heavily scripted curriculums fail to create student-centered learning climates. In this example of South Philly High, as in what has transpired with West Philly High, Ackerman again shows how little she values parent-community-school ties. She has taken a school where parents and the community were demonstrating their interest and slammed the door in their faces.

Ackerman's explosion

The Notebook reports on an incident in which Philly SD Superintendent Arlene Ackerman lost her cool when responding to a teacher who criticized the school district's bureaucracy: http://www.thenotebook.org/blog/113256/tfa-teacher-gets-angry-response-ackerman

Obviously, Ackerman shouldn't have lost her cool, but I am more concerned about the content of the response. The teacher leveled a fair and widely voiced criticism - that 1) the curriculum required by the school district, while potentially raising test scores, does not provide a meaningful education, and 2) that the district's system of paperwork further impedes the ability of teachers to provide an education and therefore should be stream-lined. Ackerman responded by attacking the teacher for making excuses and suggested that she teach somewhere else.

My concern is that Ackerman did not offer a coherent response to a legitimate criticism. As a public figure and leader of a public institution, she has a duty to directly answer legitimate criticisms about District policies. Instead, she grandstands and, like a good politician, returns to her talking points: that teachers shouldn't be making excuses and that they should be able to teach a rock how to read. (The funny thing is that she made this accusation of a member of one of the leaders in the 'no excuses' movement. I find it hard to believe that this TFA teacher was actually trying to make an excuse for why her students were not learning. Rather, I think she was arguing that her students should be learning more!)

As the leader of a public institution, Ackerman is obligated to offer a reasonable defense of policy decisions. She should not hide behind a set of talking points while ignoring legitimate criticism.

Scripted Curriculum

I was fortunate to have the opportunity to observe a 3^rd grade class this morning. Having been a high school teacher, and despite many discussions concerning scripted curriculum, I have never seen a scripted program in action (actually, I have seen a scripted program, but that was about a decade ago as I observed teachers in preparation for Teach For America).

The first thing that I have always thought about scripted programs is that the students must be bored out of their minds. I was surprised to find that the students seemed to be… dare I say, enjoying their work? There was certainly not much excitement (save for one particularly exuberant student). One reflection, I am not sure I should have been so surprised. During my TFA days, teaching high school in rural NC, my students often enjoyed worksheets over the painstakingly designed lessons I planed that I hoped would be more interesting. In those days, I chalked it up to an aversion to hard work (built in part through years of exposure to low expectations). Worksheets are clear and to the point. They have definitive right and wrong answers – their goals are well defined. Many students resisted being pushed outside of the word banks and blanks offered by the text-book-company-provided worksheets. Of course, there were plenty of students who craved this, but my sense is that there was a majority who were more interested in the easy path. Not trying to say that is what was going on in this classroom, but it is a hypothesis concerning what might be contributing to the students’ seeming enjoyment of the worksheets. Honestly, I wouldn’t fault them too much – there have been many times that I have given up writing to do the dishes or complete some similarly well defined and contained task. It feels good to be able to look at stack of clean dishes or a completed worksheet rather than a pile of words which might or might not make any sense at all! (did that make sense?)

I think I also have to give something to the teachers here – they had obviously built up a strong relationship with their students. The kids were bought into these folks. I mean, the kids were not little angels – they were playing around some and not always focused on their work at hand, but they were generally focused and engaged. The students seemed to respect and trust the teachers.

As for the scripted curriculum itself, I can see how this sort of program can build skills. There is repetition, all students are asked to engage, kids are asked questions similar to what they might see on a test. It is that last bit that gets me. I am afraid that this sort of program will produce results based on our current systems of accountability – standardized tests. The scripted program I saw looks like it has real potential to raise test scores. But that is in spite of the lack of attention to measures of achievement that the tests cannot measure (or do not measure well). I saw very little opportunity for higher order thinking. Most of the questions that students were asked and that students generated were simplistic, straight-forward, identification or definition questions. Sure, these kids need to be able to do that and they might be behind with those skills, but if they are behind now, their lack of higher order thinking experience will put them even further behind later – even if they develop their more basic skills. If these kids are behind, the program to catch them up also needs to be building in higher order tasks. I typically think of this as the job of the teacher. Teachers can do this by pushing students for justification, asking them to explain their answers, asking students to evaluate propositions, etc. The teacher in this classroom was not given the leeway to push students in this way. I expect that, down the road, as she learns the program (this is it’s first year) she will find ways to build opportunities into the class (perhaps she already has in other areas of the class). I certainly hope she does.

Declining opportunities for civic engagement

I highly recommend taking a look at Peter Levine's video summarizing his perspectives on civic engagement: http://www.peterlevine.ws/

In it he acknowledges the troubling declines in civic involvement: citizens are less likely to follow the news, join civic associations, etc. He goes on to point out what a lot of research is demonstrating: at least some of this decline can be attributed to declines in opportunities for civic involvement. Politics has become professionalized. Spiffy TV commercials and fund raising have replaced grassroots organizing. Unions have been gutted and schools emphasize testing. Levine is concerned about the impact this has on the involvement of working class Americans in politics. Their participation is declining faster than that of Americans who have graduated from college. Consequently, their voices are less represented in political discussions. I know Levine is currently trying to study the barriers that keep working class Americans from political participation. He implies in the video that these barriers are, to some extent, the result of the efforts of what I will call the political elite ("political consultants", "professionals, politicians, lobbyists, and advocates of all stripes"). If these political elite have some influence on the availability of opportunities for participation, then we need to understand how these elite develop their ideas about citizenship and the need for the civic participation of others in society. I hope that my work will provide a picture of this development.