Semester in review and students as change agents

Originally posted at www.21stcenturyscholar.org

The semester is ending. Students are submitting papers. Professors are grading papers. And, hopefully, all had a great four months. As I reflect, I am thankful for a challenging and rewarding semester. I am grateful to have a career that allows me—via research, teaching, and service—to interact with an array of people and, along the way, to become a better professor and person.

And yet, as we look back, it is impossible not to think about many troubling events that have occurred, from mass shootings to blatant racism. Across the world, people are experiencing repeated acts of symbolic and physical violence. Most believe the current state of affairs needs to change. However, judging from national dialogue, there seems to be little agreement about how to do so. More locally, reading my Facebook feed has become a schizophrenic act. One person frustratingly posts about a blustery demagogue; another frequently retweets memes about the right to bear arms. There seems to be a heightened amount of political and ideological strife. More than anything, there seems to be quite a bit of prostrate frustration.

Maybe I’m naive, but I still believe in our capacity to create a better world. Two weeks ago, my students reminded me why and, perhaps, how.

In class, we discussed an article by Jeannie Oakes and Martin Lipton about school reform as a social movement. An overwhelming amount of leadership lit talks (very rosily) about the importance of consensus building and collaboration—and we read some of the work earlier in the semester. Oakes and Lipton’s point is that, if we are serious about equity, we have to acknowledge that it's not in everyone's best interests. Positive change is conflict-based. It requires leaders to adopt a grassroots mentality to bring attention to and contest racist, sexist, classist, xenophobic, and a variety of other prejudiced actions and policies that are reaffirming inequities in our schools and neighborhoods. I was blown away by how respectful, thoughtful, and passionate students were when discussing the topic. There are so many negative examples of injustice occurring across the country and world right now. It would be an easy out for students to be cynical.

Most of the students in the class are aspiring school leaders. It was our last in-person class of the semester. We've talked before about the challenges of being a principal, balancing professional and personal responsibilities. A district mandate may not always be in the best interest of students. But, if you choose to advocate for students or teachers and believe in social justice, that may also put your job in jeopardy. That's not easy for a variety of reasons, especially considering family and financial obligations.

It was such a great moment as students acknowledged that they want to and have to be the ones to ensure equitable opportunities for all students. It was such a pleasure to be a part of their conversations during the semester, to see them challenge and learn from each other. And, it's reaffirming to know they're working in our schools and for our students.

Happy holidays and cheers to a new year.

Tom Hanks Loves #FreeCommunityCollege and So Do I

Originally posted at www.21stcenturyscholar.org

Is it possible for Tom Hanks to be any more lovable? Apparently, yes. Last week, the actor who made such endearing classics as Big, The ‘Burbs, and Turner & Hooch published an editorial about his time at Chabot Community College. After discussing his experiences, he concluded, “That place made me what I am today.”

Hanks wrote the op-ed in response to President Obama’s plan to provide free community college. Of course, the policy warrants a critical discussion. The research is mixed about the effectiveness of two-year colleges. Scholars have long discussed the possibility of a “cooling out” that may occur; others focus on the lack of degree completion among students and poor alignment between two- and four-year colleges. For instance, less than two-thirds of students who enter community college will graduate with a degree after three years.

Others argue that Obama is wasting billions of dollars. After all, pathways to college and career begin years before community college. Why not spend the money on early education or remediation? Consider that, in a city like New York, less than half of the students from the lowest performing schools graduate. Of those who do, less than a quarter are college-ready.

Bill wrote last week about the possible externalities of the ambitious plan. Yes, it may increase college access for low-income students; privileged students may also partake. With a limited amount of resources and no such thing as pure public goods, perhaps the government ought to target the provision of services. Established policy scholars presented similarly incisive arguments when mayoral candidates during New York City’s last election waved big, bright flags for universal pre-kindergarten. Few discussed the downsides of such a simple and alluring idea. Namely, scholarship indicates that low-income children benefit the most from pre-k. In such a cash-strapped state and city, why would politicians subsidize a service for middle- and high-income children when the gains will likely be minimal?

I agree with all of the above concerns. The plan may be a colossal waste of money. It may not improve college access or address the core problems of the pre-k to college pipeline. It may never even survive the whims of the political process. And yet, I’m thrilled.

Prior examples show that sometimes politicians—rather than using the results of a cost-benefit analysis—ought to make decisions based on ideals. That’s part of being an ethical policymaker.

Postsecondary education made me a more thoughtful and compassionate person. It also prepared me for a career that I love. I was a first-generation college student. My family couldn’t afford a four-year university. I attended community college. I eventually earned a Ph.D. One wouldn’t have been possible without the other. Everyone should have the same opportunity.

My wife and I are also one of the first cohorts who have incurred so much student loan debt that—despite everyone trumpeting the value of postsecondary education—the financial burden may outweigh the benefit. The cost is even higher for first-generation students today. That’s wrong and something needs to change.

Maybe the free community college plan fails. Or, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe, it foreshadows a free four-year college plan. I’ll take the risk because the reward could be so much better.

What’s trending?

Red Hook rests in South Brooklyn. Water surrounds two sides. The Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, which fences in the landlocked side, serves as a looming reminder of separation. Cut off from the subway, the neighborhood feels unlike other Brooklyn neighborhoods where gentrification and redevelopment rule. One business owner said, “People love living here. We don’t have a lot of transportation options and that’s part of the reason we have a strong neighborhood.” 

The neighborhood contains the largest housing projects in Brooklyn. Karima, a precocious 17-year-old, travels over an hour to get to her prestigious high school. Having to take bus to the subway, she transfers three times. “It’s the worst in the winter,” she says, “I leave when it’s still dark. It’s so cold.” 

I have spent quite a bit of time in Red Hook. Residents seem to want the same types of things: access to quality healthcare, jobs, and education. 

---

Common Core standards. NCLB waivers. Competency-based learning. College and career readiness. College ratings. STEM.

The stories of the young men and women who allow me to document their lives remind me of how disconnected education reform often is from the underserved and under resourced communities it often purports to help.

Similar to policy reforms, we need to nurture a balanced portfolio of short- and long-term goals, improving foundations and innovations.

An insider perspective: Why education is going to improve

A few weeks ago, the Boston Celtics lost to the Miami Heat in the Eastern Conference Finals. Doc Rivers, one of the best leaders of individuals in the world, sat at the podium. He organized a team effort to nearly beat a superior team. On television, there could not have been a gaudier setting. On the left column, ESPN advertised the upcoming television program, a banner of upcoming events. On the bottom, a ticker highlighted sports scores. On the table next to him, there was a Gatorade. And behind him, a banner advertised the NBA. After he spoke, the network cut to the Kia postgame show. For a lot of people, this television program represents some sort of Orwellian dystopia. It portends a corporate future where individualism no longer exists.

What do I think? Funders fund change. Gates, Broad, and any other number or philanthropies, keep doing what you are doing.

What I am talking about is a concept in innovation called the next adjacent possibility. Those people need to move out of the way. In case I have not been clear enough, the connections to education ought to be fairly obvious. Schools of education are being renamed. Neighborhood schools are becoming charter schools. Content is becoming privatized. Is this Sodom and Gomorra? Nope, it’s change.

I am sick of either / or distinctions, and so is my generation. There are times to be polite and indirect and there are times to be harsh and direct. I think we’ve reached former. If you are the old guard, you are impending progress.