Teacher in a Strange Land

Trick or Treat?

So, how ‘bout those great debates on education, huh?

Questions for my fellow American teachers: Do we have a clue about the direction that the next administration is likely to take? Has there been clear illumination on how the next president—or, really, the next Secretary, Congress and Department of Ed—will shape and administer federal policy?

Most important: How will this election change what really happens in our classrooms? Federal and state elections do have a trickle-down effect, but it’s hard to say, at this point, what substantive change might result from new faces and new ideas.

You can do a platform-to-platform comparison if you like wading hip-deep in rhetoric and large but ultimately meaningless expenditure pledges. Or you can compare proposals from the Education Advisors’ Debate at Teacher’s College, Columbia (see my colleague Renee Moore’s thoughtful take—which wins the prize for best title, as well).

Speaking of advisors, the McCain campaign has almost exclusively featured Lisa Graham Keegan speaking on McCain’s education policy. The Obama campaign changes up spokespersons; there have been at least a half-dozen, from Stanford’s scholarly Linda Darling-Hammond to Colorado principal Michael Johnston to Melody Barnes of the Center for American Progress (whose remarks on the usefulness of multiple models for assessing student growth caused Flypaper’s Michael Petrilli to have something like a cyber-infarction and set off a round of ed-policy snitblogging).

You can interpret this “one mouthpiece” vs. “many ideas” contrast as evidence of Obama’s willingness to weigh multiple policy perspectives, or as proof that McCain is consistent in his educational beliefs and doesn't pander to special interests. (This being Halloween, we might also remember Ralph Waldo Emerson’s remark about foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds.)

The truth is, campaign promises don’t always become reality, especially in schools and towns far removed from the policy makers. You can, however, get a sense of what buttons a candidate is willing to push, which policy actors will be enthusiastic collaborators and which are enemies.

The first time I heard the phrase “Texas miracle” was in a campaign speech made by then-Governor George W. Bush who claimed to have data backing up his conviction that accountability and raising the achievement bar were reachable goals. I’m all for teacher accountability and raising the bar—I paid attention. Bush’s No Child Left Behind has likely had more impact on public school practice than any legislation since the first incarnation of ESEA, back in 1965.

But has the law brought us closer to fixing the things that really need fixing? No. There are principals, teachers, entrepreneurs and visionaries out there right now changing schools and making things better for kids and their learning, but NCLB has functioned mainly as another cumbersome set of governance obligations, sucking up schools’ time and resources, rather than the clear spotlight on excellence and inequality it was supposed to be. (Worse, it’s caused organizations nominally dedicated to serving high-needs schools to shift their focus to more sophisticated and expensive data analysis systems and silly arguments over portfolios--things they can control.)

Sometimes, what candidates say about education does end up being very important—transformative, even. I went back to the only presidential debate question on education, which came in the ninth inning of the third debate, and re-read the things that the two candidates said. In their single opportunity to speak about education, given a global question and about three minutes, here are their words. I edited a bit for clarity and length—and I left out most of their skirmish on D.C. public schools, because it's not particularly relevant to people outside the Beltway--but do not believe I changed the intent or meaning of either candidate's key points.

Take your time. Read them carefully. You might be getting a glimpse of the future.

Take your pick. Trick or treat.

OBAMA: [Education] has more to do with our economic future than anything. It also has a national security implication. There's never been a nation on earth that saw its economy decline and continued to maintain its primacy as a military power. We've got to get our education system right.

We are going to have to invest. Early childhood education, so that every child is prepared for school. Every dollar we invest in that, we end up getting huge benefits with improved reading scores, reduced dropout rates, and reduced delinquency rates.

It's going to be critically important for us to recruit a generation of new teachers, especially in math and science, give them higher pay, give them more professional development and support in exchange for higher standards and accountability. 

I think it's important for us to make college affordable.  I've proposed a $4,000 tuition credit, in exchange for some form of community service, whether it's military service, whether it's Peace Corps, whether it's working in a community.

We can't do it just in the schools. Parents are going to have to show more responsibility. They've got to turn off the TV set, put away the video games, and, finally, start instilling that thirst for knowledge that our students need.

We did the right thing by saying every school should provide education to kids with special needs, but we never followed through on the promise of funding, and that left local school districts very cash-strapped.

I doubled the number of charter schools in Illinois despite some reservations from teachers unions. I think it's important to foster competition inside the public schools. Where [Senator McCain and I] disagree is on the idea that we can somehow give out vouchers as a way of securing the problems in our education system.

We need to make sure that if we have bad teachers that they are swiftly -- after given an opportunity to prove themselves, if they can't hack it, then we need to move on.

Recently [McCain's] key economic adviser was asked about why he didn't seem to have some specific programs to help young people go to college and the response was, well, you know, we can't give money to every interest group that comes along.

I don't think America's youth are interest groups, I think they're our future.

MCCAIN: [Education] is the civil rights issue of the 21st century. There's no doubt that we have achieved equal access to schools in America after a long and difficult and terrible struggle.

What is the advantage in a low income area of sending a child to a failed school and that being your only choice? Choice and competition amongst schools is one of the key elements that's already been proven in places in like New Orleans and New York City and other places where we have charter schools, where we take good teachers and we reward them and promote them.

We have to be able to give parents choice. Charter schools are providing the kind of competitions that have upgraded both types of schools. Now, throwing money at the problem is not the answer. You will find that some of the worst school systems in America get the most money per student.

We need to encourage programs such as Teach for America and Troops to Teachers where people, after having served in the military, can go right to teaching and not have to take these examinations -- or have the certification that are required in some states. And we find bad teachers another line of work.

As far as college education is concerned, we need to make those student loans available. We need to give them a repayment schedule that they can meet.  We certainly need to adjust the loan eligibility to inflation.
 
I'm sure you're aware, Senator Obama, of the program in the Washington, D.C., school system where vouchers are provided and there's a certain number, I think it's a thousand and some and some 9,000 parents asked to be eligible for that. And we all know the state of the Washington, D.C., school system. That was vouchers. That was vouchers, Senator Obama.

Now as far as the No Child Left Behind is concerned, it was a great first beginning in my view. It had its flaws, it had its problems, the first time we had looked at the issue of education in America from a nationwide perspective. We need to fix a lot of the problems. We need to sit down and reauthorize it.

I think the Head Start program is a great program. A lot of people, including me, said: look, it's not doing what it should do. By the third grade many times children who were in the Head Start program aren't any better off than the others.

Let's reform it and fund it. We need to reform these programs. We need to have transparency. We need to have rewards. It's a system that cries out for accountability and transparency and the adequate funding.

Town hall meeting after town hall meeting, parents come with kids, children -- precious children who have autism. Sarah Palin knows about that better than most. We'll find and we'll spend the money, research, to find the cause of autism. We'll care for these young children. And all Americans will open their wallets and their hearts to do so.

And I will support those reforms, and I will fund the ones that are reformed. But I'm not going to continue to throw money at a problem. And I've got to tell you that vouchers, where they are requested and where they are agreed to, are a good and workable system. And it's been proven.

Image: yeswecarve.com

In Schools We Trust?

From Teacher in a Strange Land, January 2007:

I’m currently taking a course on education and economics. At our first meeting, the professor (who is an economist) noted that the past two decades have seen the increasing influence of econometrics into education policy, with a sharply rising curve in the 21st century. I asked him why he thought that was and he gave me a great (and honest) answer: Economists have better theories. Economic theories have been honed for decades, even centuries, and economists have vastly better and more convincing quantitative tools to measure outputs. Besides, he said, economists think they’re right and tend to be aggressive.

Well. Last Friday, the nation’s most famous economist, Alan Greenspan, admitted that he may have been “partially” wrong in trusting banks to protect their shareholders. Those sharp quantitative tools and rock-solid economic theories crumbled in the face of rampant self-interest. And we’re all screwed.

Benjamin Barber, in an eloquent blog on Huffington Post, traces the economic collapse back to lack of trust:

Trust is a crucial form of social capital, a recognition of the common ground on which we stand as citizens. It is the glue that holds rival producers and consumers together and lets them do the business that would otherwise do them in. Whereas the whole point of the market is competition - selfishness and narcissism as self-conscious instruments of market calculation.

Although it was bad loans and greedy bankers and stupid hedge fund managers and ignorant investors who made the mess, it has been four decades of de-democratization that has done the real damage. A hemorrhaging of social capital that nobody noticed because government was supposed to be the problem and markets the solution.

Democracy's real product is trust. As the war on government became a war on democracy it drew down the well of social capital and eroded trust, causing citizens to lose faith in each other and their common power to govern themselves.

Social capital and trust. Can we apply these lessons to our public schools and the barely-breathing ideal of democratic equality in education before they completely implode, too? When people who have resources and power move their own children into sheltered schools—schools they trust—and then use their personal bully pulpit to demean and erode public education, the ultimate outcomes harm us all. It’s not just about my children. It’s about everyone’s children, because we’ll be living on this planet with all of these children for the rest of our lives. And eventually, they’ll be running the show.

One of my favorite scholarly books (full of theory and quantitative tools) is Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement by Anthony Bryk and Barbara Schneider. Bryk and Schneider, in a series of case studies done in Chicago in 2002, provide convincing data showing significant increases in student achievement—measured by every economist’s favorite tool, standardized tests—when trust is present. When teachers trust principals, when parents have confidence in teachers and administrators, when teachers feel free to take risks in improving their practice—student learning and school operations improve. It’s as simple as that.

We are at an historic tipping point in America, a time when our national values have been spread out before us for re-examination. Individual gain vs. public good? Free market forces vs. effective regulation? School vouchers vs. investing in public education? Who do we trust?

Image: Singhajay/morguefile.com

One Vote Samba

I had dinner with a friend earlier this week, a first grade teacher in a nearby suburban town. We were talking about the upcoming presidential election—dicey conversational territory, as one of us is generally red and the other blue. She said that she was re-thinking her usual practice of holding a mock election a few days before November 4.

Years ago, she made a refrigerator-box voting machine, and her pint-sized citizens cast ballots to reinforce the social-studies concept that we live in a country where every person’s vote counts. Four years ago, however, her classroom turned into a war zone during campaign season. Her students screamed at each other—things like “you voted for a baby killer!” and “you voted for a dumb guy!” She counted the secret ballots herself (no six year old would ever entertain the concept that his teacher might cheat) and declared the election a tie, although it wasn’t. This year, she’s thinking she may just read a nice story about a president. Any president. She’s afraid that kids will say even worse things about the candidates, and she won’t know how to deal.

I was sorry to hear that. I really like the idea of nurturing patriotism and civic responsibility in school kids. One of my proudest teacher moments was having my actual voter registration card in my pocket the last time I “voted” in a schoolwide mock election—it impressed the heck out of the 6th grader who tried to “register” me, too. I told them that I had missed precisely one election—a primary, in 1994—in the 18 years I have lived at my address. I may have even used the phrase “a right and a privilege,” reinforcing what my colleagues had been teaching.

For a time, the township polling place was in my school.  I loved voting during my conference period, chatting with passing students as I stood in line to exercise my civic duty. So I was also sorry to read this story in the New York Times (thanks to a tip from This Week in Education). I fully understand the security concerns, but it’s a sad day when public voting becomes an act that can endanger children. It’s beneficial for kids to see adults valuing participatory democracy—enough to leave work early, slog through an icy Michigan rain, and stand in line. It’s what we do, as patriotic Americans.

It’s really hard to reconcile my personal convictions about free elections and living in the best country in the world with all of the recent stories (here and here, for example) about fraud, corruption and general nastiness in this election. And if it’s hard for me—what must it be like to be six years old and pick up a frightening robocall or see one of those dark-hued TV ads? We all lose when kids perceive politics and voting as dirty and dangerous.

Image: Billaday/flickr creative commons

When did Social Justice get to be a Bad Thing?

When did social justice get to be a bad thing?

Please deconstruct this for me, a child of the 1950s, who put her hand over her heart and said out loud, every day, in concert with my classmates, that I believed in “liberty and justice for all.” When did we start putting “social justice” in quotes?

Isn’t social justice one of the foundational principles of our great American experiment in governing toward democratic equality, a more perfect union? I live in a small town, what you might call pro-America real America, and taught in a public school for thirty years. I believed in social justice, when it was first explained to me, in kindergarten, as being fair to everyone in our class—and I believe in other educational manifestations of social justice since, from Brown to equitable funding to Title IX to accountability.  I also believe that social justice and a strong capitalistic economy are not mutually exclusive.

In fact—aren’t social justice and equal opportunity intertwined in our political philosophy? Human rights—civil liberties and a good education—followed by the right to enjoy the benefits of your own hard work, no matter who your family is or where you were born? To freely choose a goal of personal enrichment (plumbing, evidently) or a path of public service? Shouldn’t the blessings of liberty be equally available to every American child? Isn’t the nation happier and more secure when everyone has a stake in our economy, a real shot at a good life?

Who are these people who are snarling around suggesting that creating schools and curriculums to address the learning needs of inner city poor kids is some kind of left-wing plot? If I’m not teaching—ultimately—toward social justice, toward improved opportunity for each of my students, then why would I teach at all? I certainly wouldn’t do it for the money.

Sorry.  I have reached Rhetoric Overload—the point at which it feels like I am living in a parallel universe. A bona fide Strange Land. I am genuinely queasy about the level and nature of the national conversation this past week—especially all of the perfectly good language utilized as code for fear and intolerance. Again—when did social justice become muddled up with extremism and destroying the fabric of democracy?

A few scary tidbits, on the social justice front:

In fact, as one of the leaders of a movement for bringing radical social-justice teaching into our public school classrooms, Mr. Ayers is not a school reformer. He is a school destroyer. Education students signing up for a course Mr. Ayers teaches at UIC, "On Urban Education," can read these exhortations from the course description: "Homelessness, crime, racism, oppression -- we have the resources and knowledge to fight and overcome these things. We need to look beyond our isolated situations, to define our problems globally." (Sol Stern, City Journal)

Those last two lines come right out of the “21st century learning” playbook--they could have been written by Jeffrey Sachs.

ACORN relies on canvassers who appear to be paid based on how many signatures they get – an invitation to fraud – and because ACORN as an institution appears to collectively think such fraud is tolerable in the name of “social justice.” (The aptly named JammieWearingFool.)

The campaign also cited two projects the [Annenberg] foundation funded, one having to do with a United Nations-themed Peace School and another that focused on African-American studies. "That is radical in the eye of this campaign and we imagine in the eyes of most Americans." (Michael Goldfarb, spokesman for McCain, in Politifact.com.)

Obama's vision of hope shines like a rainbow, appealing but just out of reach. McCain's call to freedom and responsibility is less exciting, but you know it works. The Tribune encourages voters to vote what they believe, not what they wish were true. (Tampa Tribune)

And I’m not even going near the crazy Congresswoman from Minnesota suggesting that now might be a dandy time for a congressional witch hunt.

Sigh. Has it been this bad in other election years? Not for a long, long time.

That last quote, from the Tampa Tribune, I find particularly depressing, as a teacher. When you have your local newspaper urging you to aim low—informing you that hope for a better country is out of reach—it’s hard to keep your own teacher vision of a good America, the greatest country in the world, full of innovators and mavericks, from getting a little dim. And when you take a perfectly democratic—small d—phrase like “social justice” and start deliberately attaching it to terrorism and radicalism, the light goes out completely.

I’m going to vote for what I wish were true.

Image: Biberta/morguefile

FOR AND BY TEACHERS

Like much of America, I have been living in Involuntary Policy World for the past few weeks. Faster and faster news cycles. The Policymaking Crisis du Jour (and lately, they’ve been actual crises, not fake media-generated disasters). How will we fix our problems? Who has ideas?

For those who live on-line and in crisis mode, a day spent in the company of children may not seem like an atmosphere for creative problem-solving. It might be hard to conceive how a group of worn-out teachers in comfortable shoes and paste-encrusted denim jumpers could gather in a school library at 3:35 and –without so much as fresh coffee, let alone a $1000/day professional trainer—solve real problems in education.

But they can, and do. One of the most promising trends in educational practice is the Professional Learning Community movement—the simple but powerful idea that small groups of teachers working collaboratively on focused issues of teaching and learning are best positioned to come up with effective solutions to address the thorniest dilemmas in their own schools.

Why haven’t teachers been doing this forever? Good question.

"In many schools across America, teachers enter their classrooms each morning only to close the door and teach with little to no peer interaction."

Teachers are isolated in an “egg crate” culture. If they have good ideas, there are few mechanisms for sharing them. And just about everybody in Policy World has a plan for how to fix their work and their schools.

My life passion is uncovering, defining and honoring effective teacher practice. I was very impressed by this new report from the Center for Teaching Quality—a report on the practice of developing professional learning communities, and what educational leaders can learn about creating the right policy supports to enhance good practice. Note: this usually runs in the opposite direction. The report was funded by Wachovia through their ASSET program in North Carolina, but the content--the teachers' voices--comes right out of the classroom.

Not only is the information useful, the format is way cool—it’s easy to use but high tech, it’s available free on-line and it includes podcasts of teachers telling it like it is. Try it.

Image: Diarechern/morguefile.com

EH, POLITICAL 3: Revenge of the Myth

Are we having fun yet? Is the presidential campaign a mere distraction from the extreme bobsled ride that is The Economy? And whatever happened to education as front-burner issue in the 2008 election? Even a $30 million promotional crusade from Bill Gates and his ed-buddies (now halted) couldn’t shove education into the spotlight.

Too many other fish to fry. Neither campaign can take the time to embed a succinct, soundbite-ready policy vision for what 21st century education in these United States might really look like—and people are sick of arguing over No Child Left Behind. It’s old news.

Those of us who care deeply about education policy have to content ourselves with scraps of attention and promises made in campaign platforms. And, of course, nervously checking our 401(k)s.

Obama took a 60-second stab at education in each of the two debates, mentioning math and science, and the role of an improved educational system in future-building. He also suggested that schoolteachers, making “$30,000 to $35,000” shouldn’t be called upon to tighten their belts when Wall Street brokers were screaming for federal mercy. And Mike Petrilli at Flypaper was off and running, with a little blog entitled “Pity the $30,000 Year Teacher” with a retro photo and a string of semi-hostile comments.

The usual arguments were trotted out: teachers work nine months/year, which means we can add 33% to their earnings and say it’s their “real” salary—what they’d be earning if they worked 12 months/year. Which they don’t. Petrilli went on a statistical safari, hunting for the real true data on what teachers make, then slicing and dicing the numbers, finally suggesting that Senator Obama should have said that lots of teachers make $40,000. And upwards!

Hey, guys? Can we stop looking at average vacation time, benefit packages and prevailing local wage—and just agree that teaching is generally a low-paying job with few opportunities for financial advancement? It’s a worthy and socially important career—lots of Petrilli’s readers say that the rewards are far greater than money—but teaching is not highly valued in the American economy.

Petrilli posted a follow-up blog saying that, yeah, of course some teachers should be better paid. Then he divides the deserving (newer teachers, those in high-needs areas and subjects, those who raise achievement) from the undeserving (teachers who enjoy secure retirement benefits).

No new thinking here, just an opening to reinforce the pretty spurious idea that teachers make plenty and should feel bad about their outsized pensions. Should we change the way we pay teachers? Yes. But we begin that policy conversation with our goals: to continuously upgrade teachers’ skills and efficacy, to put better teachers into struggling schools, to reward professional excellence and to invest in a different kind of learning for the kids who will be leading this nation in 2040.

In American public policy, we don’t do much long-term investment. Put in a little now, wait patiently and reap benefits later? Not our style. We want public services on the cheap and immediately, including a great education system. Maybe it’s time to start looking at the way other countries approach teacher development and compensation.

And is all of this political?  You betcha.

Image: Alvimann/Morguefile

EH, POLITICAL 2: The Phantom Menace

Once you start looking for teacher-vs.-politics skirmishes, they’re everywhere. Whether they’re terribly meaningful is another question. Our public schools are an open stage where the conflicts and issues of our collective lives as citizens play out. That’s hardly new, and may actually be one of the strengths of our uniquely American idea of the common school in a democracy.

Take this moron in Florida, who decided that his learning goal for his seventh graders would involve acronyms, and chose to use a word that makes decent people recoil. Should he be fired?

The trusting educator in me says that perhaps there’s a teachable moment here and the consequences should fit the transgression. I’d love to sit in his middle school library and listen to the guy apologize, explaining his actions to parents, students and the school system that hired him. Firing him outright would only enrage his supporters, whose comments I found more frightening and loathsome. Most of those comments have vanished from the web, but here’s a sampling, for as long as it lasts.

And then there’s this video. I found the link on This Week in Education, where Alexander Russo was nice enough to include Teacher in a Strange Land in his Around the Blogs yesterday. I hate to be an ingrate, but AR suggests that the video might make Obama supporters “embarrassed.” The charter school teacher who, umm, choreographed (and, presumably, videotaped and posted) the pro-Obama chanting has been suspended.

While I admit that the para-military dress (is that the school uniform?) is creepy, there was something oddly stirring about it. It’s 100% partisan—and that’s a clear transgression—but I was fascinated by middle school boys shouting out their personal aspirations and policy points from Obama’s health care platform. I taught middle school boys for 30 years, and can testify that the depth of political knowledge and engagement in the brightest of them seldom gets beyond one-dimensional sloganeering, or repeating what they have heard their parents say.

Which, of course, is part of the public apprehension around this issue: What if my child’s teacher presents an alternative point of view? What does it mean to be a patriotic American? And what if teachers "brainwash" poor kids in a charter school, inciting them to believe that they can organize and acquire political power? Then you get this:

Under Obama and Ayers, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge distributed over $100 million dollars in an effort to place race, class, language and culture at the center of public school curriculums.

Personally, I think that a school curriculum that ignores the context of race, class, language and culture isn’t worth much. Those who have advocated for the forces of market reform—using public monies to set up charter schools, bypassing layers of institutional sludge to create schools that “work”—might have another opinion about the charter school in Kansas City. Although I doubt whether a brigade of blazer-clad students debating the finer points of free-market capitalism would raise any eyebrows.

You can’t keep political values out of schools—public, charter or private. You can demand respectful behavior and equitable airing of viewpoints in a democracy.

Image: JRW/morguefile

EH, POLITICAL

I wish I had a stock certificate for every time I’ve heard a teacher exclaim “I’m not very political, but…” Or maybe I’d rather have a dollar, cash money in the cookie jar, given the times—but the point stands: teachers, individually, are caught between a rock and a murky place when it comes to politics.

When teachers say they aren’t political, what they usually mean is partisan. Or some variant of dogmatic, intolerant or aggressively involved. Teaching is an inherently political occupation, however. The daily work, from kindergarten to Chemistry class, is built on authority, rules, governance structures, practical policy and diplomacy, the key words in any definition of politics. Systematic decision-making in schools and educational policy is always driven by political forces—and those of us who teach in public schools understand the intersection of public policy-making and funding with workplace conditions better than most people.

Teachers should be political. First, as role models and public employees, teachers have a moral obligation to be well-informed citizens who engage in civic learning and responsibility. In other words, they ought to read the news and regularly cast informed ballots. And think, occasionally, about the place of education in a country founded on principles of democratic equality.

The thing about staying on top of current events, engaging in dialogue and reflection, is that it’s easy to develop, you know, opinions. To examine and choose between certain policy ideas, political story lines, and politicians. And then, teachers’ other moral duty—the murky place—comes into play. While teachers have an obligation to be knowledgeable, they need to keep their personal beliefs out of the classroom, to walk a careful tightrope between information and perspective.

In a sense, in keeping the public trust, teachers temporarily modify their right to free speech. The hard part for teachers is the fact that other powerful forces—television talking heads, advertising money, pop culture—have no such constraints. Does the teacher who strips ethical viewpoints out of her lessons leave her students vulnerable to glitzy or dishonest political propaganda? How do we teach our kids to be discerning and wary while encouraging them to care about the democratic process—and remain politically neutral?

Some educators respond by becoming apolitical—removing not only overt beliefs from their public personae, but disengaging from all political conversations and controversies. Others keep their personal politics under wraps at school, but feel free—as they should—to support candidates and initiatives on their own time. It’s a difficult line to draw, however. I live in the school district where I taught. My students live in the houses next door and across the street. Was it OK for me to post a political sign in my front yard, or on my bumper? I also attend church with some of my students’ families. Can I speak up for my beliefs there? I’m a citizen, too.

And is there ever a time when events supersede neutrality? I believe that American teachers did a sterling job on September 11, 2001, with no template for appropriate behavior, but there are those who think that teachers since have interpreted the transformative events of that day in “unpatriotic” ways. During the Electoral College Showdown, election 2000, the American history teachers in my middle school were directed not to discuss hanging chads or the Supreme Court decision, ostensibly because it could cause them to lose their place in the curriculum. Kids might not be prepared for the statewide assessments.

Translation: please don’t let the principal get any phone calls from angry parents.

The point is: while adults are watching history made, on TV, kids are watching adults. They’re watching manipulative political ads right now. Our children and teenagers—we want them to be politically engaged eventually, don’t we?—are watching an undeniably historic election and national economic crisis unfold, at this moment.

When teachers say nothing about these events, what does that tell children? That school is not the place to learn about civic discourse, deconstruct advertising claims or even clearly define “democracy?”  Do teachers have more influence over their students than their families, friends and the media? Enough influence to make wearing a blue shirt to school an act of political subversion?

MUSIC EDUCATION CARNIVAL ~ OCTOBER 2008

MUSIC EDUCATION CARNIVAL!! STEP RIGHT UP!! SPECIAL ATTRACTION: NEW MUSIC MEME!!

This week, Teacher in a Strange Land is hosting the Music Education Carnival. New on the blogging Carnival scene, MEC is celebrating its fourth outing. Look for it on the first day of each month. And if you have something to submit (Yes! Please!)—next month’s Music Education Carnival is set to rumble at Travis J. Weller's place, November 1. The submission form is here.

Let’s begin the carny action with a meme. I picked up the tag from Dina over at The Line.

A meme is a little cultural nugget—a provocative question, a video that nobody can resist, a comment or idea that strikes a chord—which spreads virally. After you respond to the meme, you tag other bloggers and—voila!—everyone is talking, watching and reading about the same thing.  This meme is a question uniquely appropriate for musicians:

What five songs on your iPod do you consider guilty pleasures?

If you're reading this, consider yourself tagged. And when you send out tags to your friends, you can mention that you saw it first on the Music Education Carnival, then send them back here to read the Carnival. My five iPod guilty pleasures appear at the end of the Carnival, and will undoubtedly make you feel better about any shameful selections on your MP3 player.

MUSINGS ON MUSIC EDUCATION--LET THE CARNIVAL BEGIN

Music Education Carnival co-founder Joel is up first some great advice on Pacing: What Every Great Band Director Knows. Highly recommended, especially for new teachers or those needing a lifeline. Check out Joel's other good stuff at So You Want to Teach?

Thomas J. West gives us the lowdown on First Act Musical Instruments: Are They Worth the Price? Thomas plays investigator and shares consumer reviews and his own experiences in an even-handed synopsis.

High marks to Michael Antmann who tackles assessment in Making the Grade, Assessment in Band, Part I. Some cogent thinking--and next time, Michael promises to tackle the dreaded practice record dilemma.

Citius, Altius, Fortius says Music Education Carnival co-founder Dr. Joe Pisano. Dusting off my four years' of HS Latin, I mistranslated the title...it's not "Higher, Faster, Louder" (a.k.a. "what to look for in a marching band chart"), but  Faster, Higher, Stronger. Dr. Pisano's post is about excellence, persistence and believing in the cause of high-quality music education. Inspiring, indeed.

Listen and Learn is music therapist Rachel Rambach's site, where she offers reflections on her work and songs, like Fall into Fall. Rachel, is there a "Spring into Spring" forthcoming?

Nancy Flanagan, your host here at Teacher in a Strange Land, shares what happens when percussionists are extreme visual learners in Mr. Holland Teaches Me a Lesson.

Finally, as a flutist, I heartily approve of Thomas West's second submission, Flute Teaching for the Non-flutist. And I'm picky. Read it, and learn.

TECHIES AT THE CARNIVAL

Larry Ferlazzo offers us One of the Coolest Online Music Tools Ever. It's Contrapunctus Variations, an online tool that lets you compose using your computer mouse. Larry confesses that it's a little hard to explain--but then he does a good job of whetting our interest. Visit Larry and see.

You can find anything online, including free music. Go and see Fiona King who will lead you to 100 Places to Find Free Christian Music Online.

Interested in finding local bands' websites? Try here.

WordPress Hacker offers Navigation Tabs for those who blog on WP.

IN A CATEGORY BY HIMSELF

Barry Wright III, in his blog, Style Life, muses on learning to play the bass guitar. He has observations on how and where he practices (Duke University Chapel steps). Interesting take from a self-taught musician--we can learn a few things from Barry.

AND BROWSE THE CARNIVAL MIDWAY...

Woman Tribune offers a social networking site for independent musicians: PureSound Records.

Paul Heingarten, lifelong musician, is starting a new ezine about music and you're invited. Find out more!

Or teach yourself guitar--see here.

AND A LATE--BUT TERRIFIC--SUGGESTION FROM EUGENE CANTERA:

Pittsburgh Steelers coach Bill Cowher takes piano lessons? No fake. See the big bruiser's reflections on what winning a Super Bowl has in common with practicing when your pinky is sore: no excuses. Thanks, Eugene--a great way to end the Carnival.

SO THAT'S IT...The Music Education Carnival is over for October. See you next month. Bring your friends.

And be sure to pass along the fun meme (below). What's on YOUR iPod that you'd rather not share with your classically trained musician friends?

Five Guilty Pleasures on my iPod:

#1) “Boulder to Birmingham” (Starland Vocal Band). Yup. The same vocally folks who gave us “Afternoon Delight” --which is NOT in my iTunes.

#2) “The Land Before Time” film score selections (James Horner). Can’t help it. Fell in love with this when my kids were tykes, about 18 years ago.

#3) “What a Friend We Have in Jesus” (Dolly Parton). Reminds me of my grandma, who used to sing this while she was ironing. May she rest in peace. My grandma, that is, not Dolly.

#4) “Whiskey, if You Were a Woman” (Highway 101). The lead singer's voice could cut glass, but I have this secret affinity for country music that sounds like country music used to. 

#5) "Imagine" (David Archuleta). I loathe American Idol. But for some reason, I didn't see this rendition as sacrilege. I liked it enough to pop for 99 cents, anyway, and listen to it when I'm feeling all moody.

Images: Clarinet by Puddleduck/Graffiti by XanderT/Maracas by Chelle/morguefile.com