Happy New Year!
Silver linings are hard to see in cloud cover as thick and unrelenting as 2020.
2020 was a year best seen in the rearview mirror (perhaps 2020 hindsight?).
Only the willfully blind - that is to say 74 million Americans, give or take - might see 2020 as a pretty darn good year.
For the rest of us, 2020 was a train wreck of epic proportions. I will refrain from elaborating on the bike wreck that left me with a neck broken in three places, a broken hip, 3 or 4 broken ribs, near paralysis (I’m gradually recovering) and months of challenging rehabilitation. If it had to happen, this was the year. I couldn’t go anywhere anyway.
But there is a silver lining or two in the educational realm.
To the extent that the Department of Education has any effect on education, other than interfering with teachers’ work by injecting superfluous standards and accountability, newly-nominated Secretary Miguel Cardona will be an improvement. This is faint praise, since most sentient beings would be a step up from Cruella DeVos, as I somewhat viciously declared in a prior post. Cardona is at least an educator and seems, at first glance, to be a decent and competent administrator. But therein lies a problem that should prevent any celebratory backflips. He is an administrator. I was too and, as the saying goes, it takes one to know one. We should have a progressive philosopher king as Secretary of Education who can hire others to manage programs and fill out forms. A guy can dream.
Cardona’s most promising credential is that there is no indication that he despises public education and wants to turn America’s system into an evangelical charter school. Beyond that, we’ll see.
I’m less sanguine about his inclination to hack away at the dreadful vines of testing and accountability that have had a stranglehold on children and teachers since lawmakers decided in 2002 to leave most children behind. In his confirmation hearing to be Connecticut’s Commissioner of Education he said, “State assessments are important guideposts to our promise of equity.” “They are the most accurate tool available to tell us if all students… are growing and achieving at the highest levels on the state standards.”
Oh-oh. When “assessments,” “tool,” and “standards” appear in one paragraph, my ears perk up and my heart sinks a bit. To paraphrase myself, children are not “standard,” and any regime of standardized testing is guaranteed to miss the most important things about most of the kids. And uber-frequent testing is like weighing Hansel and Gretel constantly and expecting them to gain weight without feeding them very often.
I’m also wary of his views on charter schools. He is not, apparently, a charter zealot, but he is thus on the record: “. . . charter schools provide choice for parents that are seeking choice, so I think it’s a viable option . . .” There are powerful political and financial forces behind the “school choice” movement and their motives lean heavily toward privatization and religionization (a non-word that should be a word). Fighting these forces is an uphill battle and you can’t start an uphill battle by conceding ground.
The brighter silver linings appearing on the 2021 horizon are two lessons learned - maybe.
The pandemic spawned a nationwide frenzy of online education. It failed spectacularly, an outcome that any progressive educator would have easily predicted. Real learning is engaging, active, human, sensory-rich, differentiated, funny, musical, spontaneous and based in discovery, not boring exercises on computer screens. It has been nearly hilarious to see interest in forest schools, outdoor education and other progressive practices, as though they were brilliant innovations in response to the pandemic, rather than centuries-old approaches that have been affirmed by contemporary advances in brain science.
The other silver lining is the burst of appreciation for teachers and health care workers. I wrote in a newspaper column:
For many years I have also been cynical about the ubiquitous and reflexive inclination to “Support our Troops.” It is nothing against Troops. I was a Troop, having served as an Army officer in the Vietnam era. But only 10-11% of “troops” ever serve in a dangerous setting. The remainder are doing a job, perhaps an important one, but the conventional idea that they are withering under enemy fire to keep us “safe” is largely nationalistic fiction.
I don’t write that as gratuitous criticism, so save the hate messages. I note this only as contrast to the long, long overdue acknowledgment of health care workers and teachers, to whom America owes a massive debt of gratitude.
Every health care worker in the path of the pandemic is in exponentially greater danger than the average “troop.” The courageous selflessness of nurses, doctors, nursing assistants, maintenance staff, food service staff, orderlies and cleaning staff is remarkable. Every day, in understaffed and underfunded settings, they endure physical and emotional exhaustion, only to get up and do it again the next day . . . and next day . . . and next day.
America’s teachers have been similarly challenged and responded with similar selflessness. They have been asked to work in medically hazardous situations without proper equipment. They’ve been in classrooms and then out of classrooms, expected to reimagine curricula and master technology. Like most medical professionals, they are under-compensated and overworked, although few have been required to work the inhumane hours in conditions endured by healthcare workers.
2021 should have us forevermore singing praises to these unsung heroes and properly supporting our schools and health care facilities.
Only Pollyanna could see 2020 as a blessing in disguise. Even the most malevolent deity wouldn’t put humankind through the hell of the past year.
But as new growth always arises from ashes, perhaps 2020 has sown seeds that will grow into seedlings of justice, compassion and commitment to our beleaguered schools.
Note: If these posts inform, engage, enrage, humor or otherwise affect you, help build the network by sharing on social media, sending to email lists or just mentioning to a friend. Also comment, argue, add to or otherwise join the conversation. Thanks for reading!
As a teacher who has a vested interest in anything Steve Nelson pens (full disclosure – I’m his brother), I must take issue with two things in this post. The first is the Hansel and Gretel analogy. Steve wrote:
…uber-frequent testing is like weighing Hansel and Gretel constantly and expecting them to gain weight without feeding them very often.
That’s cute, but it’s not an apt comparison for several reasons, not the least reason being that it is not nearly damning enough about standardized testing. A more accurate version might look something like this:
…uber-frequent testing is like weighing Hansel and Gretel with a scale that isn’t calibrated, frequently produces random results, and actually measures cholesterol, not mass, then extrapolates that to a guess at their weight using a formula developed by a school administrator and an education researcher.
Of course, at this point the thought is so unwieldy as to be appalling. But it’s right.
If any subject is amendable to the measurement of student achievement (whatever that is) by use of a standardized test, mathematics, the subject I teach, should be it. It isn’t. In my extensive experience, standardized mathematics tests measure perhaps two things: one, they indicate with varying reliability the student’s ability to perform certain specific tasks under considerable duress that are at least tangentially related to, but hardly indicative of, actual mathematical achievement; and two, they indicate with somewhat better reliability their own substantial cultural and socioeconomic biases. Contrast that middling value with their criminal effect upon students and learning and it’s not hard to conclude that Hansel and Gretel had it no worse than the average 8th grader during testing season.
My second issue is both more timely and more of a challenge to my brother’s sentiments, especially given that he and I have no disagreement about standardized testing. Concerning on-line education, he writes:
It failed spectacularly, an outcome that any progressive educator would have easily predicted. Real learning is engaging, active, human, sensory-rich, differentiated, funny, musical, spontaneous and based in discovery, not boring exercises on computer screens.
My concern is not with his description of real learning. I could not agree with him more (and I have never expressed it as well, although I might add “intimate” and “social” to his list of adjectives). My concern – and for me it is a profound concern – is with his conclusion that our COVID-induced surge in online education “failed spectacularly.” Did it? Not from where I sit.
I’m afraid there might be some conflation here. It’s obvious that there were massive problems with attendance, engagement and accountability. But that’s not the same as saying that there is a problem with the mechanism of online education as a way to teach. My fear (dread is a better word) is that too many people, enthralled with the facility, convenience and glitz of online education, will see it as just as good as, if not better than, traditional classroom learning, and never want to go back. Attendance problems can be dealt with by establishing new procedures, let’s give students options, flexibility is good, these tools are so neat, etc.
I see plenty of evidence that this is a prevailing line of thought in too many circles, and it’s a line of thought that in my mind would be a death knell to real education. Online education is no substitute for classroom learning; it’s utterly inferior and therefore rife with inequity. I have hard time describing it as education at all. But I think we have a fight on our hands if we’re going to sustain that as a prevailing sentiment and slow the online teaching juggernaut. I wish my brother’s report of failure was right, but I doubt it.