At this point, all the authors of this blog are finishing up our two-year commitments to Teach For America. This means, of course, that we are being bombarded with invitations to apply for jobs at charter schools, especially KIPP schools.  In general, these jobs involve longer hours, lower pay (at least on a rate basis) and the loss of union protections. Yet they seem to be very popular options among those corps members who stay as teachers. With that in mind, my next few posts on this blog (and they’re coming, I promise) are going to be devoted to exploring the kinds of working conditions that dedicated teachers want, and examining ways in which the school system can help nurture those working conditions. 

My district union rep visited our school yesterday. One thing she said really stuck in my mind. It was an argument about transfers. Basically, to paraphrase a reasonably complicated issue, the city wants the power to move teachers from school to school, while the union wants teachers to be able to stay where they want. (This is a gross oversimplification on both sides, but for our purposes, a sufficient explanation.)

While I don't want an unlimited forced transfer system, the point of this post is not to firmly take a stand on this issue, but rather to complain about some shoddy argumentation being done on my behalf. The union frames this as a matter of rights. Teachers have the right to stay in their school, teachers have the right to control their work environment, etc. This type of argumentation is symptomatic of a broader strain in American political discourse, in which everything and anything becomes more appealing if it's framed as a right.

This is not only illogical, but it's also damaging to the broader purpose of contesting this issue. Simply, not everything we want is a right. Rights are a limited, although cohesive, system of protections created in order to provide people with a minimum of protections. I'm all for expansive systems of rights. I'm all for workers having better protections, but not everything can possibly fit in this category. In fact, any system of rights at all consistent with the American legal conception of the concept would seem more likely to include a protection on behalf of employers, in order to allow them to allocate human capital in the way they deem most efficient, than to protect the rights of workers to stay exactly where they are.

That doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons to dislike an unlimited transfer system. It just means that a rights claim is not sufficient grounds upon which to contest the advent of such a system. Here are better arguments against such a system:

1. Workers don't like having their autonomy limited any more than is neccessary. Unhappy workers tend to do a worse job. Forcing transfers, which limits autonomy in the most basic areas of a worker's daily life is likely to create a disgruntled workforce.

2. The mere possibility of a forced transfer severely inconveniences teachers, especially in regards to things like family planning, and makes it less likely that teachers stay teachers for very long.

3. The DOE is much less qualified to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of specific teachers than principals, or other co-workers, who see these teachers on a day-to-day basis, and so any theoretical structural benefits in human capital allocation are likely to be mitigated by simple stupid decisions.

Like I said, I don't really want a system of forced transfers. But when the UFT advances a line of reasoning that is not only logically flawed on face, but also fails to address the real heart of the issue, it does its members and our students a significant disservice.

   Among the many non sequitors and illegitimate characterizations, John Bice makes a particularly short-sighted argument about education in the Michigan State News.  The self-proclaimed Liberal insinuates that unfettered markets fail in providing the "public good" of education to the masses.  He writes:

   Many of our most successful government programs, which most of us take for granted, would never have transpired under libertarian rule (i.e. free markets and private property rights). Here's a short list: labor laws, environmental protection, rural electrification, workplace safety laws, Social Security and disability protection, Medicare and Medicaid, public education, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, construction codes and fire safety, public broadcasting, Family and Medical Leave Act, product labeling and truth in advertising laws — the list goes on.  

   Bice commits the classic governmentalist fallacy of neglecting to account for both the seen and unseen effects of public spending.  We see the government providing disadvantaged youth with education much as we see the government building parks for recreation and operating the postal service.  Every day we are directly inundated with the outlay of taxes, which indeed provide a semblance of value to people.

   What we don't see, however, are the countless unrealized projects foregone by government spending.  These unseen alternatives constitute a sizable opportunity cost that should not be discounted merely because they cannot be depicted pictorially.  My thesis is that we would be far better serviced if those expenditures instead came from private sector.

   Consider a thief, for example, that steals money and spends it on various goods and services.  With every transaction we see how the looter "supports" commerce and employment.  But we don't see the foregone path of those funds if the theft never occurred.        

   Moreover, imagine the thief held the only gun in town and operated such an entrenched extortion scheme his victims mailed him the loot at regular intervals.  Awash in money, the thief spends large amounts and props up entire industries.  The Joe Bice's of the world claim these industries and jobs would disappear without the thief.  

   But these assertions fail to appreciate the subtleties of opportunity cost.  Whether conducted by a government or any other thief, the expenditure of coerced funds only take the place of voluntary spending.  Plunder does not create wealth.  It simply shifts supervision of how wealth is spent.   

   Absent government spending, will the education industry fall by the wayside?  To answer this question, it is appropriate to consider the private schools that don't exist now because public schools do exist.  Public spending on education crowds out competition in the industry.  It's quite arduous for a business reliant upon voluntary patronage to compete with those subsidized from compulsion.  Hence, private industries appear inadequate to provide crucial services when coercive enterprise enters the business. 

   But this does not mean that private schools couldn't flourish to meet the needs of rich and poor.  We just cannot see this service provided presently because of government distortions in the market.   

   Furthermore, the public spending crowds out qualitatively superior industries.  With an invariable inflow of funds, our thief (government in this case) has little incentive to economize their spending.  The institution of taxation insulates the thief from competition and the obligation to extract the greatest utility out of the earth's scarce resources.  The system invites the misallocation and stagnation of critical resources when it pushes competition off the horizon. 

   This is precisely the organization of industry that Bice proclaims necessary.  My contention, however, is that a free market will deliver better so-called public goods privately.  If people sufficiently value parks, education, or a postal service (among other government products), the demand for them will summon a supply.  Merely because the government commandeers certain industries today does not necessiate the inference that private industry is incapable of meeting this demand tomorrow.  Private enterprise has an impeccable track record of coordinating demand and supply.  Unless we look beyond the services in front of us to those foregone, however, it's impossible to appreciate the eminence of the marketplace in fulfilling the wants of consumers within the context of scarcity and asymmetric information.

   Are NYC kindergartners ready to learn about HIV?  Some--notably, the Department of Education--insist on educating our youth early about the disease.  Others understandably find such instruction inappropriate.  Must the winner take all?

   The debate over the appropriateness of the said content deserves to be heard.  Such an inquiry doesn't, however, warrant uniformity of what students actually hear.  Parents should wield ultimate discretion over how and when their children learn the hazards of HIV, and schools ought to differentiate their curriculum accordingly.  Let parents decide whether they want to send their children to schools that teach about HIV, H5N1, Heracles, hippopotomi, or all.  If demand exists, so will supply.      

   Why then does this simple idea sound so impractical? Precisely because of the over-standardization of our centrally planned schools.  Schools are forced into a one-size-fits-all curriculum from the political whims on high.  If parent C has reservations about child C's instruction on sexually transmitted diseases, that's too bad.  Short of having the means to pay for private schooling or fortune to win the KIPP lottery, alternatives are artificially scarce.      

   Until we empower parents with choice over what their children are taught and when, such curriculum conflicts will remain both needlessly inevitable and unresolved.

I'd like to make this perfectly clear: I have no opinion on what the question I'm about to ask. I really don't know what to think about this, but I believe it's a very important question.

Should all public schools have greater power to expel students? One major difference between private and public private schools has nothing to do with resources, or social class, or faculty quality, but concerns how each deals with troublesome or disruptive students. Private schools can simply remove those students.

Educators, think over your classes. How much easier would each of them be if you did not have the two or three most disruptive students? Even the single most disruptive student? How much more time would you have to teach the rest of your class? Is the belief that we need to reach every single student worth the cost to invested and interested students that each of these disruptive students requires?

Now, think about your administrators, support staff, and other teachers. How would they use the power to expel students? Would they simply get rid of anyone who showed the least inclination towards misdirected energy? Would they try to expel low test-score kids to make the school look better?

Finally, would it be more efficient to have schools developed entirely for those students who have trouble with the behavioral expectations of mainstream schools? Would this actually help students, or would it simply trap them in "alternative" schools that provide little more than temporary holding facilities?

All opinions are welcome...

I saw a David Berliner lecture last night at Pace. To recap some of the highlights: according to Berliner, NCLB is "stupid." He argues that it's goals (including 100% proficiency) are designed in such an unrealistic manner as to lead one to believe that their sole goal is to embarass educators. Furthermore, he added quite a lot of interesting data on how testing fails to realize it's goals. More importantly, he talked a great deal about the negative consequences of testing on schools and school culture. I don't have a lot of time right now to explore his sources, or even deal with his arguments substantively right now; as readers may have surmised by our recent collective silence, this is a pretty crazy time of the year for teachers, but I thought I would at least try to get some discussion going about testing in general. Also, I'll be out of the country for a week, so expect a little bit more of the low frequency posting, at least from my end...

Yesterday was the first day of extended time, the 37 1/2 minutes of "small group" tutoring that was a ballyhooed part of the new teachers' contract in New York City.  Essentially, in exchange for our recent raise, all teachers are now required to spend 37 1/2 minutes a day tutoring small groups of students after school.

In the end, the small-group setting may be beneficial to struggling students.  However, the way it's been implemented has been a disaster.  Rather than wait until next year to implement small groups, the New York City Department of Education decided to start in the middle of the school year.  There was little time to prepare, little time for professional development, and--worst of all--little time to notify parents or students.

Imagine this: You're a 7th grade student, happily going about your business.  Suddenly, one day, your school notifies you that you're required to stay for 40 minutes after school.  Worse, this stipulation only affects certain students, so some of your friends get to leave at the regular time.

You go to the after-school program, but it turns out to just be more test prep.  (Although it's not supposed to be used for test-prep, the time is being used at my school for "targeted practice" in test taking "skills.")  What do you do?

Skip the tutoring the next day, of course.  Today I had zero--that's right, zero--kids show up for my small-group session, presumably disenchanted by their experience on the first day.

The tutoring could well be a real boon for students in the end.  But the sloppy and hurried way it was introduced virtually ensures that it will be a waste of time and resources for the foreseeable future.

   This may come as a surprise from a math teacher who daily professes the virtues of the subject, but I don't believe a shortage of math and science exists in America.  There is absolutely no need for President Bush to spend his proposed $50 billion over ten years promoting quantitative skills in our schools.  Why? Because the labor market does not warrant such a demand absent government intervention. 

   By definition, a shortage in any type of labor implies the demand for labor exceeds supply.  Under such conditions, the higher demand for a given quantity of mathematicans and scientists exerts a buying pressure on the labor market that drives prices up.  The increase in prices (i.e. wages) lures people into the math and science profession until the market clears.   

   As evidenced by the higher unemployment rates among math and science people with PhDs than the general population, such a shortage does not exist in America.  The marketplace value of the mathematics discipline ($61,761) falls far below that of law ($109,478) and business ($79,931).  Yet the government continues adhering to the fallacious pretense that a sufficient number of lucrative careers await mathematicians and scientists in the labor market.

   The subsidization of these disciplines can prove disastrous.  In creating false price signals that draw American youth to believe they can bank on a future vocation that isn't there,  the government will only further add to the ranks of the unemployed. 

   The always eloquent Lew Rockwell comments:

(By subsidizing math and science in job-training institutions, Bush) is not only raising false hopes, diverting career paths, and wasting money, he is raising a non-problem and purporting to solve it with a non-solution. The central-planning approach to boosting science was tried and failed in every totalitarian country, and the same will be true in nominally free ones as well. Still, it seems that megalomaniacs just can't resist the urge to push the idea, which is why mathematicians and scientists leftover from Soviet days are driving cabs and tending bars in today's Russia.   

   While I continue to believe teaching my students math will impart them with redeemable skills, I must object to the false notion that a shortage exists in the subject.  We must prepare students for the "real world," not deceive them with the fancies of central planning. 

   A couple of CNN writers cover an intriguing alternative to the traditional schooling approach here.  The philosophy of "unschooling" holds fundamental the premise that students will learn more when they choose when and what to learn.  The report explains:

An extension of home-schooling, "unschooling" is when parents give their children total freedom to learn and explore whatever they choose...

The term "unschooling" was first coined in 1977 by John Holt, an education reformer, the founder of Holt Associates and author of the book, "Teach Your Own."

Holt felt traditional home-schooling didn't go far enough. He believed parents should not duplicate schools in their homes. He favored an education more freewheeling in nature, one that depends on the child for direction.

The expectation is that along the way they will get an education.

There are no mandatory books, no curriculum, no tests and no grades.  

   I like the idea of "unschooling" for a number of reasons:

 1)  Instead of constantly being told what they are expected to learn (ex: Today, students will be able to add fractions with unlike denominators), students will be pushed to find what interests them independently.  Essentially, they will learn how to learn.

2)  It will diminish student boredom.  Despite my best efforts to "hook" students, I invariably find around 1/3 of my class bored to death.  Some students simply do not care about integers, state standards, or how to master the Regents.  If they chose what to study, students can be expected to pick subjects that don't put them to sleep.  By studying subjects they find more exciting, I believe students will grow more enthusiastic about the learning process.

3)  It will remove the negative stigma associated with education.  Many students view education as unpleasant work.  When forced to learn things of no interest or use to them, I can certainly sympathize with this aversion.  Must this be the case?  I believe we can help students better appreciate the means and ends of pursuing knowledge by empowering them to choose what to study. 

4) The students' skills of judging sources of information on internal evidence will not deteriorate as it does under the conventional model of education.  In this latter model, students are expected to believe what teachers and textbooks say.  Although some teachers can elicit critical thinking in students, these educators are few and far between.  With "un-schooling," students will learn in a less dogmatic format and consequently be better prepared to embrace the intellectual bearings of skepticism.  

   My ruminations on the "un-schooling" model are merely a preliminary assessment.  There will undoubtedly be cases where this approach is not appropriate.  I believe, however, that thinking about alternative forms of education is a necessary endeavor to preserve the health and legitimacy of the broader system.  The conventional model is not the be all and end all for education.  If we want students to think critically about what they learn, we must do the same with how we teach.