Afro-Netizen

Obama-Era Education Policy: The Evidence of Things Not Seen

By Ronald E. Chennault

Guest Contributor

Originally published by Education Week

One of the education innovations President Barack Obama seems to be enamored of is the extension of the school day or school year (or both). Whether he means providing more after-school programs, creating more learning opportunities during the traditional summer break, or literally adding hours to the school day and days to the academic year is not clear, though he appears to be in support of all of the above.

But what the president actually means matters, because requiring students to spend more time in school—even more than was envisioned over 25 years ago when A Nation at Risk promoted the idea—is a policy we in fact know very little about. And what we do know suggests that adding more time is not worth the effort.

Among Mr. Obama’s promises to the nation was that, under his administration, science would be brought back into the White House, and the primacy of decisionmaking supported by evidence would return to government. When it comes to education policy, though, my reading of what has emerged during his first year in office suggests that he didn’t really mean what he said.

"Large-scale experimentation requires caution and needs to be informed by theory and practice, not just promoted by strong rhetoric."

For starters, he selected a former chief executive officer of the Chicago public schools, Arne Duncan, to lead the way. This was a disappointing though not surprising choice, given that the president’s relationship with Duncan predated the election, and was based in part on bonding around a favored American sport. Duncan’s experience as the head of the country’s third-largest school district was surely a major factor as well. In that capacity, he oversaw for seven years one of the most dynamic, intricate, and challenging districts in the nation.

What disappoints, however, is that Duncan doesn’t seem to have developed much wisdom from that experience. There is no indication of a broad or deep understanding, or at least an appreciation, of the complicated relationship between education and larger societal forces. Nor was his tenure as Chicago’s schools chief an unmitigated success in any of the popular ways politicians and presidents define success, such as increased test scores and lower dropout rates.

Duncan’s debut on the national stage has been quite remarkable. Since the creation of the position in the Carter administration, the U.S. secretary of education has primarily been a “quiet” player. The one notable exception was William J. Bennett, during the Reagan administration. Given the nature of Duncan’s service as CEO of the Chicago schools under Mayor Richard M. Daley, it seemed likely that he would fit quite well into the “quiet player” pattern. Quite the opposite has happened, however: Secretary Duncan has been one of the most visible and vocal Cabinet members thus far. He has offered a series of bold declarations about the state of schooling, and aimed a barrage of highly critical barbs at educators and schools of education.

Education in America, particularly what takes place in many urban and rural schools, cries out for our most creative thinking and sustained attention. And having a prominent, empowered figure leading the way could help us accomplish some of the reforms that educators themselves have long supported but felt hamstrung in their efforts to put in place. Sadly, instead of “racing to the top,” reform in the first year of the Obama administration has been hastening down a much too narrow-minded and unsupported path. Which brings us back to the question: What of this reclaimed era of evidence-based decisionmaking?

For some of Duncan’s biggest ideas so far—more mayoral takeovers of local school districts, more performance-based-pay programs for teachers, longer school days or school years, increased routes to teacher certification, larger numbers of charter schools—there are at best limited or inconclusive findings regarding their success. And at worst, there are serious causes for concern or bodies of evidence that on balance point away from their success, not toward it. Lack of certainty does not need to be an impediment to action. But large-scale experimentation requires caution and needs to be informed by theory and practice, not just promoted by strong rhetoric.

The case of alternative certification illustrates this point. Secretary Duncan has on many occasions, such as in a major speech last fall at the University of Virginia, extolled the benefits of what he calls “high-quality alternative pathways” to teacher certification (such as Teach For America). In that same speech, he criticized traditional teacher education programs and called for them to be, among other things, “more rigorous and clinical.” Yet Duncan wants to have it both ways: to lambaste schools of education for not offering enough preparation to future teachers, while praising alternative-certification programs that inherently accelerate the process and offer less clinical preparation.

Instead of an evidence-based approach, what this sounds like is an administration that emphasizes the evidence that supports its educational agenda and downplays or ignores that which doesn’t. The unfortunate result is that, after one year, President Obama’s education agenda is, broadly speaking, indistinguishable from that of his predecessor. Sure, Mr. Obama, unlike George W. Bush, has not expressed support for federally funded voucher programs, for example. And it is nearly impossible to imagine that President Bush would have thought seriously about schools’ needs in his allocation of billions of stimulus dollars. But for anyone who might have expected the current president to move in a new direction in education, there is not much about which to be hopeful.

"Sadly, instead of 'racing to the top,' reform in the first year of the Obama administration has been hastening down a much too narrow-minded and unsupported path."

President Obama has claimed that Arne Duncan “will use only one test when deciding what ideas to support with [our] precious tax dollars: It’s not whether an idea is liberal or conservative, but whether it works.” But what works for whom? In what context(s)? According to what indicator? More to the point, with regard to many of the ideas that Secretary Duncan has promulgated so far, we don’t even know yet what works. So, by his own standards, the president is being less than honest.

The truth of the matter is that President Obama has a particular vision of the role that public schools should play in our society, and his secretary of education’s job is to promote that vision. But education is a value-laden enterprise—inescapably so—and while evidence should be driving our educational decisionmaking, the field is too complex to have these matters decided by research alone.

The reform of education in American has to be connected to a vision of what kind of society we want to have and how education can help us get there. So far, President Obama’s corporate-minded approach has led him (and Secretary Duncan) to speak of the role of education in very narrow terms. Judging from their comments, they see schools as existing primarily to develop in young people the skills they need to compete for jobs in a global economy. Such rhetoric is relevant at the moment, given the unemployment numbers the nation is facing, but ultimately we deserve—actually, we need—to have a president with a more expansive and hope-filled view of the functions of education than that.

If the administration were more truthful about its education agenda—that is, by admitting that it’s not about what works but what those in charge want to work—then we could discard this pretense of evidence-based decisionmaking and get to the real battle at hand.

Ronald E. Chennault is an associate dean of education and an associate professor of educational policy studies and research at DePaul University, in Chicago.

University of California Swindle: California’s Apartheid Schoolhouse

By Sikivu Hutchinson
Guest Contributor

On March 4th, as the University of California San Diego continues to roil with the fallout from the so-called Compton Cookout, thousands of students and faculty will participate in statewide protests against a draconian budget that has cut a bloody swath into California’s public universities. UC and Cal State student activists across the state are calling for an end to the “privatization” of public higher education.

Activists charge that university officials are increasingly siphoning funding for instruction to research and development through byzantine private investment schemes. In addition, there is a growing trend to give preference to out-of-state students who pay higher admission fees. The majority of these students are not from historically underrepresented African American and Latino communities.

This strategy essentially reduces spots for working class students of color who are far more likely to rely on financial aid. While UC chancellor Mark Yudoff recently boasted of an $800,000 salary and perks to star faculty, “grunt” faculty and staff were laid off or forced to take furlough days, classes were canceled, program funding was curtailed and a draconian 32% tuition hike was proposed. Yudoff’s king’s ransom was garnered on the backs of California students of color who will be denied access to a system that is nationally regarded as the “Rolls Royce” of public higher education.

For those experienced with the business of white supremacist higher education politics, the UCSD administration’s pro forma soul searching, public denunciations and earnest pledges to discipline the “Cookout” offenders are all tiresomely familiar. In 2005, a Black female student at the private California Institute of the Arts found vulgar anti-Black epithets scrawled in her dorm room and degrading anti-Black graffiti had been written on an artwork in the Institute’s gallery.

In response to the incidents, the campuses’ Black Student Union organized protests and meetings with the administration which yielded few commitments to long term change. The school’s miniscule Black and Latino population was imperiled by scant financial aid, invisibility in the Eurocentric curriculum and the paucity of faculty mentors of color.

White faculty fiercely defended their liberal/progressive credentials with showy claims of multiculti “down-ness.” The college president publicly invoked his appreciation for Martin Luther King and deplored the hate crime as an isolated incident. When I was hired in 2006 to teach Cal Arts’ first Women of Color in the U.S. course, the campus was still festering with resentment and racial unrest. Pushing for campus climate change in a group of faculty and student advocates, I presented at endless meetings in which the administration stonewalled on redressing institutional bias through professional development training. The perpetrators had been given a slap on the wrist and it was business as usual in the “liberal” “inclusive” world of arts education that privileged the canon of the white avant garde.

During an interview on CNN, UCSD Ethnic Studies professor Sara Clark Kaplan outlined the crux of the problem with scapegoating individuals in the midst of a systemic crisis. It’s simply not acceptable to blame the university’s egregious disregard for the needs of students of color on the bigoted acts of ignorant white or “minority” students. UCSD’s gross under-representation of Black students reflects the UC system’s institutional neglect of recruitment and outreach to African American high schools. The devastating impact of Proposition 209 (which prohibited California public universities from using affirmative action admissions criteria) has been a convenient smokescreen for maintaining segregation in the UC system.

When I taught at UCLA in 2001 at the Graduate School of Education I had only one African American student in my course on culturally relevant pedagogy. Black students had gone from having a vibrantly visible presence during my stint as a student there during the late 80s and early 90s to barely registering. In some instances it was more difficult for accomplished African American seniors from highly regarded predominantly Black Los Angeles high schools like King-Drew Medical Magnet to get into UCLA than Ivy League colleges.

At slightly more than 1%, UCSD’s Black student enrollment is yet another indictment of the UC’s disgraceful wholesale complicity with the spirit of 209. As part of its demands to administration, UCSD’s Black Student Union has called on the university to step up its recruitment and retention efforts for underrepresented students. They have also pressed for more recruitment of diverse faculty and granting of tenure to faculty of color.

Recruitment, retention and tenure are important goals. Yet the deeper question of the lack of cultural responsiveness of the faculty and administration is a thornier issue. The ghettoization of ethnic studies and other so-called “minority-oriented” interdisciplinary departments contributes to a segregation of cultural knowledge in which the historical foundations of racial apartheid are obscured. Racism is viewed as a series of misguided individual acts rather than as an integral part of American national identity, power and authority. At core, the UCSD events are merely another manifestation of the post-racial fallacy that plays out every day in California’s first world apartheid classrooms.

Sikivu Hutchinson is the editor of blackfemlens.org and the author of the forthcoming Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics and Secular America.

Is Obama shortchanging HBCUs?

H/T to Michael Cottman of BlackAmericaWeb for his article, "HBCU Heads Miffed Over Obama's Budget Cuts".

In it, he writes:

Leaders from the nation’s 105 historically black colleges have complained privately that President Barack Obama has allowed deep cuts in funding to black universities at a time when many of these institutions are struggling to survive.

. . .

The money is needed in large part to help keep some black colleges from possible foreclosures and others from considering staff layoffs, so representatives from black colleges say they will turn up the heat on Obama starting this month.

. . .

The presidents were willing to give Obama "the benefit of the doubt" because he's black, the source said, but they were also concerned that Obama does not have anyone in his "inner circle" who graduated from a historically black college to advise him on the critical - and immediate - needs of black institutions.

Lezli Baskerville, president of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, which represents the nation’s HBCUs, wrote a letter to Obama in June saying that federal funding has not kept pace with the rising financial burdens of black colleges.

“The elimination of $85 million in mandatory institutional aid to HBCUs, even with the minimal increase you propose to the HBCU formula funding, would have adverse consequences for our institutions and run counter to your agenda, that we wholly embrace, of expanding educational access, affordability and accountability,” Baskerville wrote to Obama.

“We are disappointed ... that there was no request for the extension of the $85 million that is designed to strengthen HBCUs,” the letter said.

. . .

But a senior White House advisor who requested anonymity told BlackAmericaWeb.com that Obama is not cutting funding to black colleges, but actually allocating more money.

The advisor said in 2007, during the Bush administration, Congress approved a two-year $170 million allocation for black colleges, and now the funding has expired.

. . .

"To say the president is purposely undermining black institutions, when he understands the historical role that black colleges play in educating black students, is ridiculous," the White House advisor said.

. . .

Today, 60 percent of students supported by the United Negro College Fund are the first in their families to attend college; 62 percent are from families with annual income of less than $25,000; and 93 percent qualify for financial aid. . .

Read the full article here.

Text of President Barack Obama's 2009 Notre Dame commencement speech

Text of President Barack Obama's commencement address Sunday as the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., as delivered, as transcribed by the White House. The Rev. John Jenkins is the school's president. The Rev. Theodore Hesburgh is Jenkins' predecessor. Brennan Bollman is the class valedictorian.

___

Well, first of all, congratulations, Class of 2009. Congratulations to all the parents, the cousins — the aunts, the uncles — all the people who helped to bring you to the point that you are here today. Thank you so much to Father Jenkins for that extraordinary introduction, even though you said what I want to say much more elegantly. You are doing an extraordinary job as president of this extraordinary institution. Your continued and courageous — and contagious — commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.

Good afternoon. To Father Hesburgh, to Notre Dame trustees, to faculty, to family: I am honored to be here today. And I am grateful to all of you for allowing me to be a part of your graduation.

And I also want to thank you for the honorary degree that I received. I know it has not been without controversy. I dont know if youre aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I'm only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that's better. So, Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers to boost my average.

I also want to congratulate the Class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame ...

(Speech is interrupted by anti-abortion protesters.)

We're fine, everybody. We're following Brennans adage that we dont do things easily. We're not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes.

Now, since this is Notre Dame I think we should talk not only about your accomplishments in the classroom, but also in the competitive arena. No, dont worry, I'm not going to talk about that. We all know about this university's proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world — Bookstore Basketball.

Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year's tournament, a team by the name of "Hallelujah Holla Back." Congratulations. Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the "Barack OBallers" did not pull it out this year. So next year, if you need a 6-2 forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty-three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you sit today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare — periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.

You, however, are not getting off that easy. You have a different deal. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and for the world — a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It's a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations — and a task that youre now called to fulfill.

This generation, your generation is the one that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before the most recent crisis hit — an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day's work.

Your generation must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. Your generation must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity — diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family. And it's this last challenge that Id like to talk about today, despite the fact that Father John stole all my best lines. For the major threats we face in the 21st century — whether it's global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease — these things do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" — is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education that you've received here at Notre Dame is that you've had time to consider these wrongs in the world; perhaps recognized impulses in yourself that you want to leave behind. You've grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, bringing together men and women of principle and purpose — even accomplishing that can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.

The question, then — the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called "The Audacity of Hope." A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life — but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my Web site — an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn't change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my Web site. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that — when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions."

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do.

Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It's a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where "differences of culture and religion and conviction can coexist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today's ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about.

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago — also with the help of the Catholic Church.

You see, I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. And a group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

And it was quite an eclectic crew — Catholic and Protestant churches, Jewish and African American organizers, working-class black, white, and Hispanic residents — all of us with different experiences, all of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help — to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in these neighborhoods — perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I was really broke and they fed me. Perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn not just to the work with the church; I was drawn to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

And at the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him or known of him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads — unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty and AIDS and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together, always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, "You can't really get on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched hearts and minds."

My heart and mind were touched by him. They were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside in parishes across Chicago. And Id like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

Now, you, Class of 2009, are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You'll be called to help restore a free market that's also fair to all who are willing to work. You'll be called to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or simply someone who insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communication than ever existed before. You'll hear talking heads scream on cable, and you'll read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and you will watch politicians pretend they know what they're talking about. Occasionally, you may have the great fortune of actually seeing important issues debated by people who do know what they're talking about — by well-intentioned people with brilliant minds and mastery of the facts. In fact, I suspect that some of you will be among those brightest stars.

And in this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. In other words, stand as a lighthouse.

But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It's no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule — the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame — by the last count, upwards of 80 percent — have lived this law of love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. Brennan is just one example of what your class has accomplished. That's incredibly impressive, a powerful testament to this institution.

Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn't just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens — when people set aside their differences, even for a moment, to work in common effort toward a common goal; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another — then all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Now, Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the "separate but equal" doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God's children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the 12 resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of this commission. It included five whites and one African American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. So they worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. And finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame's retreat in Land O Lakes, Wisconsin — where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

And years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away — because life is not that simple. It never has been. But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fishermen.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations, Class of 2009. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Racism is alive and well within our current school system

By Rema Reynolds
Guest Contributor

Even before Senator Obama became our President Elect, I would hear all of the time that racism is dead.  Racism is over.  Differential treatment can no longer be attributed to race. Someone should tell educators about the fatality.  It’s still alive and well within our current school system.

I was stressed.  I had to take a leave of absence from my counseling position.  It was either the leave or jail.  I was about to erupt.  During the first weeks of school, three different colleagues (including the principal of the school) approached me at three different times to inform me of the nickname given to a new teacher on staff.  The nickname had the “N word” within it.  Before and after the actual word “nigger” was used, I told them not to say it.  They proceeded anyway and laughed it off afterward.  I protested.  They responded with ‘lighten up’ comments as they walked away. 

A month later these same three educators came into my office and waited with baited breath for me to finish my call with a parent.  Mischief danced in their eyes and their lips curled at the sides in one united menacing smirk.  Once I hung up, the shorter teacher said, “Hey Rema, why don’t you ask your boss why your name came up as when we were talking about bananas.”  I was stumped.  I told them that I didn’t want to participate.  They urged me to guess.  I immediately became worried as I sat there trying to discover what ill-conceived joke they were attempting to pull off.  It finally dawned on me after much prompting from them, and I asked incredulously, “Are you calling me a monkey or an ape?”  They all exploded with laughter.  They were pointing at each other saying it wasn’t them, it was the other person. 

I closed my eyes and said, “Racist bastards.  Get out.  Get out of my office.”  They tried to laugh this off as well, but I wasn’t smiling and continued to point to the door.  They said, “Come on, we’re just kidding,” as they left. 

The principal stayed behind.  He said that people say stupid things and that I shouldn’t be upset.  I commented about the staff and the lack of diversity and the improbability of hiring anyone who would put up with this type of behavior.  He agreed and said that they can’t have people going to the District to complain every time someone said something stupid.  My response was that he would rather not hire people of color rather than change the behavior.

We don’t want to acknowledge racism in this country, much less in our schools.  It’s easier to point to socio-economic factors to explain persistent inequities we see in our schools. This is a compelling argument.  As a society, I think most of us (some people of color included) find class disparities a much more palatable explanation for our inhumane treatment of people in this country.  To blame the gross neglect and mistreatment of people, especially innocent children, in this country on something as arbitrary as race is unconscionable for many. 

Society is afraid to face the ugly truth—racist tactics are employed systemically to assign people to a certain lot in life based on characteristics beyond their control—a caste system of sorts.  Schools are primarily responsible for this assignment.

Now, you may think that what I experienced is an isolated incident that has nothing to do with children even though the three men involved in these racist exchanges were educators.  Well the fact that they are educators (one in charge of the entire school) is critical in understanding how schools promote racism.
Consider the context of this school.  The culture permits the disregard of certain students. 

At the beginning of the year, the whole staff gathered to go over the most recent state standards and student scores.  This school, like other schools across the country, is struggling to fulfill the federal requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that calls for prescribed testing goals for specific subgroups on campus.  We went over brightly colored bar graphs representing school-wide testing results for Asian, White, Hispanic, Black, and English Language Learners (ELL). 

The same principal from the above account went over the scores and pointed out the fact that Black students fared the worst.  He went on to say that though they performed poorest, teachers were to target a different subgroup with a larger population that could boost overall scores.  The other subgroup represented a ‘cohort’ of over 100 students while the Black students were less than 4% of the enrollment.  Time, resources, and instructional strategies were to be used for those students with numbers significant enough to tip the needle toward coveted Proficiency, the ultimate goal for all schools. 

Teachers went over their roll sheets, highlighted the names of “target students” and went home for the day.  Within an hour, a whole group of students had been summarily dismissed.  The school decided that their Black students didn’t deserve necessary intervention other students were receiving to ensure academic success. 

I seemed to be the only one outraged by the meeting’s conclusion.  It seemed that this federal policy was used to push a blatantly racist agenda.  At this school and many others I have worked with for school improvement, the people, the children behind the numbers were of no consequence. 

Schools are under pressure.  I understand.  A fiscally responsible school leader is forced to play the numbers game in order to retain funding for all students.  However, when examining the events that took place at the start of the school, I can’t help but wonder two things:

1.    How can educators, supposedly dedicated to the learning and development of all students, so         easily choose not to secure resources for children that they see everyday, children trusting             them with their futures?  Am I the only one who sees this type of behavior reprehensible and                 inhumane?

2.    In light of the awful remarks I endured, how can this not be about race?  Say White middle class                 students made up that 4%.  Would this predominantly White staff have so readily accepted the         assumption that there were not enough resources to service them properly, to improve their         educational journeys that year?

Students are people, humans—not numbers.  Thanks to NCLB, when considered numerically, some students are worth more than others.  How do we propose to right the wrongs of society if we do not start in schools?  How do we realize an educated America if we do not value all of her citizens equally and make a concerted effort to ensure equal access to learning for all?

The federal government has tried to legislate educational success for all students.  However, until racism is acknowledged and dealt with in real, tangible, soul-searching ways, we will not realize these goals.  With fundamental, foundational racism still intact, the best-intentioned legislation will be undermined, reinterpreted, and arbitrarily implemented at the local level to benefit some and marginalize others. We will continue to leave some children, children of color particularly, behind.

Rema Reynolds is a former teacher, counselor, administrator, and currently organizes parents for the improvement of Black student achievement in various schools. She is an Assistant Professor at Azusa Pacific University teaching aspiring school counselors and school psychologists and offers support and instruction to pre-service Secondary teachers at UCLA’s teacher education program, Center X.

Blacks in computer science: the secrets of their success

‘Underrepresented Minority’ Label Fades, But Workplace Challenges Remain
 
By Theresa Sullivan Barger & Eric Addison
Republished courtesy of NSBE Magazine/Career Engineer

"The sky is the limit for me.... As a black person, you are probably one of the most highly sought out people coming out of college.”
— DeVaris Brown, Microsoft Corporation
 
“My attitude (during the dot-com boom) was, if there is a profession where certain groups are underrepresented, it would be good to get them in there. But are we doing them a favor?”
— Norman Matloff, Ph.D., University of California at Davis

“When I advise students, I tell them the job market is not the same anymore.… I don’t think the black parents know that.”
— Felix Njeh, Bowie State University

On its face, the news is great: After years of being labeled an “underrepresented minority” in computer science, Blacks in the U.S. are on the brink of leaving that category, with bachelor’s degrees in hand.

Since 1996–97, according to the federal government’s National Center for Education Statistics, the number of black students receiving baccalaureates in the field has more than doubled, from 2,463 to 5,875. Just as significant, the percentage of blacks among computer science bachelor’s degree-holders has been rising since 1998, and in 2006, blacks made up 12.4 percent of the candidates receiving those degrees, a proportion almost equal to that of Blacks in the U.S. population (12.8 percent).

To use the national lexicon of diversity, blacks have nearly achieved “parity” in computer science at the bachelor’s degree level, a remarkable achievement, especially when one considers the continuing lack of diversity in engineering, where blacks are getting significantly fewer bachelor’s degrees — 3,355 in 2006 — and make up a significantly smaller percentage of the graduates: only 5 percent of the bachelor’s degree recipients that year.

But beneath the skin of Blacks’ success in comp sci, there are signs of deep trouble. The number of students receiving degrees in the field, including all races and ethnicities, has shrunk by more than 12,000 over the past two years for which the federal government has figures: from 59,488 in 2003–04 to 47,480 in 2005–06. The number for blacks also fell, from 6,945 to 5,875 over the period.

The bottom line under the big picture: As comp-sci seems to be losing its attractiveness for U.S. students in general, the field is becoming more Black. And the causes of these two trends are open to debate.

Slowing Growth

“Blacks have been underrepresented in most (science, technology, engineering and math) fields, so the fact that they’re up in computer science is good,” says demographer B. Lindsay Lowell, Ph.D., director of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University.
.
But in a May 2008 article titled “Making the Grade,” published in the science journal Nature, Dr. Lowell and Hal Salzman, Ph.D., senior faculty Fellow at Rutgers University’s Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, said students have been steering away from computer science for good reason

“When the IT industry was growing, the number of graduates in computer science kept pace, doubling over six years,” they wrote. “Following the collapse of the IT industry bubble, the number of graduates fell by 17 percent between 2003 and 2005. Employment in this field is just now reaching the levels of the boom years but, with little prospect of rapid growth, students seem to be wise in choosing other fields.”

Many demographers, including Dr. Salzman and Dr. Lowell, predict that near-term growth in information technology will be slow. And the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics says salaries in IT, which are much lower than they were before the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, will not grow as quickly as those in medicine, law or business.

Computer science and engineering are not the high-paying professions they used to be, Dr. Salzman tells NSBE Magazine/Career Engineer.

“People who are just looking for a high-paying occupation are less likely to go into science and engineering than they were in the past,” he says. If students “want to go into an area that is secure and high-paying, it’s probably medicine. I don’t know many people who would say computer science and engineering are going to hold as many opportunities.”

Youthful Optimism

While these experts looking at the big picture predict a somewhat bleak future for computer science degree-holders, the young graduates we spoke with expressed job satisfaction and optimism.

“I think computer science is an open area right now,” says Joshua Meduoye, a sophomore computer science major at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Md., and a member of the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE). “It’s the bedrock to various technologies that are going to come out in the future.... Various electrical engineers have told me I should switch to electrical engineering, as more companies are looking for that degree.”

Meduoye, who was born in Nigeria, had an internship this summer at Cummins Inc. in Columbus, Indiana. He is one of the 970 of NSBE’s 15,499 collegiate members who have or are pursuing computer science degrees. He says he chose computer science over computer engineering.

“I know myself to be a good thinker, a good problem-solver. I believe there’s good potential (in this field),” he says. “I see myself in 10 years’ time being an employer, not an employee.”

DeVaris Brown, 24, also a member of NSBE, is also bullish on the future of computer scientists. The Detroit resident earned a bachelor of science degree in math and computer science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2006 and is an academic relations manager for Microsoft Corporation. He loves his job.

“This job is an extension of what I’ve always wanted to do: educate the masses about technology,” he says.

He has observed that the IT jobs being sent off shore tend to require “manual” work, while “the jobs that require critical thinking stayed.” He believes computer scientists who can script, program and integrate what they do into the needs of the business have job security. While still in college, he did research and had multiple internships. And when he graduated, he says, he received several offers.

“The sky is the limit for me,” Brown says. “I’m one of those people who can determine what the business needs. I have insight as to how to make things work and how to better the company’s bottom line.... As a black person, you are probably one of the most highly sought out people coming out of college.”

Mid-Career Blues?

But what’s down the road for these 20-something computer scientists? According to Dr. Salzman, of Rutgers University, most mid-career engineers and computer scientists are pessimistic.

“There are very few who would recommend that their son or daughter go into engineering or computer science,” he says. “Few of them see it as a high-growth field.”

In addition, says Norman Matloff, Ph.D., professor of computer science at the University of California at Davis, the offshoring of jobs, and the H-1B visa program — which allows non-U.S. citizens in IT, engineering and certain other high-skill professions to live in the U.S. as temporary workers — are contributing to salary stagnation.

“My attitude (during the dot-com boom) was, if there is a profession where certain groups are underrepresented, it would be good to get them in there. But are we doing them a favor?” Dr. Matloff asks. Even in 1998 and 1999, he says, “people with Ph.D.s weren’t getting jobs. The H-1B (visa) is about age: Older people cost more. And by older I mean 35 and up. The H-1B program gives employers an outlet, so they don’t have to hire the older Americans.

“If you’re a programmer…over the age of 35, you are really at risk of losing your job to an H-1B worker,” Dr. Matloff continues. “Are we doing black people a favor by encouraging them to major in this field, when at age 35 they’re going to suffer age discrimination along with anyone else, as well as racial discrimination?”

“Computers were very hot (in the late ’90s),” says NSBE member Felix Njeh, 40, a computer sciences doctoral candidate and an adjunct professor in the Computer Science department at Bowie State University in Bowie, Md. “…Some parents thought computers were the way to go. When I advise students, I tell them the job market is not the same anymore.… I don’t think the black parents know that.”
 
‘Plenty of Jobs’

Electrical engineer Mitch Duncan, 44, a senior technical writer for Microsoft Corporation, has a decidedly different take on aging in his field. He is happy with his job and optimistic about his future and that of others, as long as they take charge of their careers, constantly learn new skills and look for different and challenging opportunities.

There will always be work for those who are passionate and who keep abreast of changes in the industry, says Duncan, a NSBE member who held a workshop at this year’s NSBE Annual National Convention. He’s done several different jobs in the 20 years he’s been at Microsoft, working in the corporate headquarters, in the field and now as a technical writer. Along the way, he’s read books, taught himself or been mentored to learn new skills. He is working on a master of computer science degree at Arizona State University.

Having the degree “gets you to the table,” he says. But to get hired and succeed, “You have to show you’re a geek. I’m a hobbyist. I live it. I breathe it.”

Darlene Fox, who earned a degree in computer science, has 28 years with The Boeing Company, where she is now a manager of noise, weight and scientific computing. “I honestly feel there are going to be plenty of jobs in this field,” she says. But you can’t get stagnant, even if you are doing a good job, she says: “You really have to manage your career.”

Comp Sci v. Engineering

So why the difference in degree numbers for blacks in computer science and engineering? Some say the reason lies in black students’ familiarity and level of comfort with the subject matter.

“In my generation, (working with) computers is something you just know how to do,” says NSBE National Chair Stevenson A. Dunn Jr., 23, a junior majoring in civil engineering at Polytechnic Institute of New York University in Brooklyn, N.Y. “It becomes fundamental to a child’s development, even in lower income households.”

Black students, many argue, do not get such early exposure to engineering, especially not through black role models in the field.

When black, college-bound students consider careers, they draw from what they know and see, says Makola Abdullah, Ph.D., dean of the College of Engineering Sciences, Technology and Agriculture at historically black Florida A&M University. They choose majors in areas they think will help their community, he says, such as law, education, law enforcement, social work, media, psychology and entertainment. They don’t pick engineering as much, he continues, because black engineers are not visible enough.

“We need to do a better a job of educating our community,” says Dr. Abdullah, a former NSBE chapter advisor. “It’s ultimately the responsibility of black engineers and computer scientists to make sure that we’re relevant in the community.”

NSBE Executive Director Carl B. Mack couldn’t agree more. That’s why NSBE had a summer camp program that reached 600 third, fourth and fifth graders in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio, this year, he says. Through the Summer Engineering Experience for Kids (SEEK) Camp, 70 black engineering students led the campers in hands-on engineering experiments. With corporate grants, he says, NSBE hopes to expand the free camp to tens of thousands of kids within three years.

“That’s what we have to do to get to these kids,” Mack says. “When they see hundreds of black engineers, they say, ‘I’m going to be one, too.’ ”

But even among black students who know what engineers do, computer science has more appeal to some.

NSBE member Hortense Burt is an engineer and manager of Education Projects at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. But after years of saying he was going to major in engineering, her son, a recent high school graduate, decided to major in computer science.

“He thinks it’s an easier major,” she says.

Dr. Lowell of Georgetown University puts it another way: “(Computer science) is much more open. The requirements for getting into it are much broader. To get into engineering, students have to have calculus and trigonometry…. Programming doesn’t require the math skills.”

“Math is one area where black students are not as well-prepared when they come to the university,” Felix Njeh of Bowie State says. “You have to have a very sound background in math to do well in engineering.... If you don’t have a good background in math and physics, you will not survive. In computer science, you might get away with it.”

But just as in engineering, succeeding in computer science requires a good long-term career plan, Dr. Matloff says. He cites a Nov. 1, 2004 article from IEEE Spectrum titled “Electrical Engineering’s Identity Crisis”. The article said roughly one-third of electrical engineering and computer science majors at MIT view their bachelor’s degrees as “a sort of technical liberal arts degree that prepares them for a wide range of technical and nontechnical jobs. Indeed, after earning their undergraduate degrees, about a quarter of MIT students go directly into jobs in finance or management consulting.”

“I think that’s very shrewd of them,” he says.

 

Theresa Sullivan Barger is a freelance business writer and a former editor and business writer at The Hartford Courant. Eric Addison is editor of NSBE Magazine/Career Engineer.

The Global Clinton Summit in Review

By Mary Dillard
Guest Contributor

I once saw an interview with Bill Clinton where he was asked “What do you think of the American people?”  His response was, “Give them enough time and they always get it right.”  That struck me as wildly optimistic, but stayed in my mind because I felt that it gave real insight into the man.  Witnessing two days of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI)  reminded me of that interview.  Former President Clinton seems determined to use his political capital in order to bring attention and resources to bear on some of the world’s most serious problems. And he’s as optimistic as ever. 

The idea behind CGI is to get a range of people together discuss global issues, come up with action plans and steps towards action.  Each morning began with a plenary session followed by working group meetings in which CGI members and invited guests met to brainstorm action items, make suggestions and most importantly, make commitments.

While the press was not allowed in the working sessions, we were able to watch video feeds of the panel discussions. I chose to watch the feeds on education in order to see what would be discussed about Africa.  I knew that Bill Clinton has been extremely inspired by Kenya’s efforts at providing Universal Primary Education to all of its school age children. Kenya’s Education Minister George Saitoti reported on the popularity of the school program and what his country is doing to ensure its success.

Kenya is emphasizing teacher training, parental involvement in budget decisions and multi-age classrooms so that older students don’t feel segregated and stigmatized.  Since this initiative was first announced in 2003, enrollments have skyrocketed and Minister Saitoti mentioned that the countries oldest primary school enrollee is 75 years old! At a time when over 100 million school age children around the world are not in school, this is an ambitious undertaking and Kenya’s efforts are being watched closely to see whether its program can be replicated. 

On Friday’s panels, Andre Agassi touted the success of his charter school in Las Vegas which serves a 96% African American student population.  Dr. Fazle Hasan Abed, founder of Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), spoke of BRAC’s expanded initiatives in Uganda, Tanzania and Southern Sudan and John Wood of Room to Read discussed his organization’s efforts to create 10,000 bilingual libraries around the world by 2010.  Author Toni Morrison attended the working sessions on education, while actor Jeffery Wright participated in the special sessions on poverty alleviation and highlighted his efforts to support the recent elections in Sierra Leone.

There seemed to be particular interest in supporting the rebuilding of the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans.  On Thursday, President Clinton personally pledged $500,000 as a matching grant to support housing construction for displaced residents.  By Friday, Brad Pitt’s “Make it Right” campaign increased the money directed towards New Orleans by an additional $5 million.  In making his announcement, President Clinton stated, “Anyone who wants to return home to New Orleans ought to be able to do so, and we want to do everything that we can to make that possible.”

It is difficult to describe the range of emotions that I felt at this event. The energy of the conference was electric.  It was exciting to hear world business, governmental and non-profit leaders talk enthusiastically about their commitments to create social change. I left Thursday’s sessions buoyed by a “Clintonesque optimism”.  Each day he announced more commitments from CGI partners and pledges to date total over $10 billion. At the same time, I couldn’t help wondering what happens next?  How does CGI insure that the commitments that are made reach the organizations that need them? How many times have global conferences inspired pledges only to find that the funds never materialized six months later?

At home, while I was turning these questions over in my head, I turned on the TV and there was Clinton again!  This time at the Apollo theater in Harlem, announcing the creation of CGI-U, an initiative directed towards college students.  I decided at that moment that I would suspend my academic cynicism and get my students on board.  I guess optimism is contagious. Plus, it will give me an opportunity to blog some more and see firsthand how these initiatives are working. 

Paying students to perform is not a proper incentive

By Ronald Chennault
Guest Contributor
Afro-Netizen

The New York City public schools system made news recently for embracing the idea of paying students for performance on standardized tests.  Actually, it’s Roland Fryer, the young African American professor of economics at Harvard, who has really been the focus of the reports.  It is Fryer’s “incentivising” idea that the NYC Department of Education has embraced.

Fryer has experimented in the New York schools before now, when Chancellor Joel Klein invited him to try out his idea in 2004, albeit on a small scale. This time around, however, up to 40 schools will participate—involving 9,000 students—in a pilot phase.  The funding for the incentive program will be raised privately, and is part of Mayor Bloomberg’s larger initiative to give cash payments to poorer adults as a way to alter their behaviors and reduce poverty. 

Fryer’s particular plan for fourth- and seventh-graders will vary payments to those students depending on performance.  Fourth-grade students will receive anywhere from $5 for just taking each of 10 standardized tests administered throughout the school year to $25 for each perfect score.  The seventh-grade students will receive from $10 to $50 per test.  To top it off, each participating school will receive $5,000.

Similar forms of incentivising certainly exist in other arenas, and even exist on a smaller scale in some educational contexts (e.g., dollars for each book read during the summer), so the details of Fryer’s plan are not altogether unheard of.  And its goal of motivating students to learn—or at least to perform better academically—is noble enough.  But is this the best way, or any way, to go about accomplishing that goal?

Part of the thinking behind Fryer’s idea seems to be inspired by motivational strategies used on him by his grandmother, some of which involved monetary rewards.  While financial incentives may be fine for parents and guardians to employ with their children, to have them become policy in a public educational context is a different animal.

The “achievement gaps” (especially the test score gaps) between white students and Black and Latino students and/or between students with higher socioeconomic status and those with lower SES have been the subject of a great deal of debate and focus of lots of research over the past few decades.  Fryer’s own work, in fact, has investigated certain aspects of these gaps.  Significant disparities exist between the opportunities and outcomes of white and more affluent students and nonwhite and less affluent ones, so the gaps deserve our best thinking and most sustained effort in order to address them.  For these reasons, the fact that Fryer and the New York City Department of Education have set their sights on the disparities is to be applauded.

It is also tempting to sympathize with the spirit of the proposal—paying students to perform on tests that take up much more of the educational landscape than they should, but that can have serious consequences for their individual futures and their schools’ futures.  Moreover, given the misuse of standardized testing that is a part of NYC’s testing system—and the city’s policy of using the results of one test to determine whether a 3rd-grader will be retained or promoted, for example, is certainly a misuse of its standardized tests—any mechanism that gives Black and brown students a boost in this highly flawed competition is hard to oppose.  If only the potential for harm weren’t so great.       

There is a substantial body of research that provides evidence that tangible rewards substantially undermine intrinsic motivation.  The findings of this research make it clear that educators should be very careful when using reward-based incentive programs.  In fact, programs that reward students based on their performance—the very type of program created by Fryer—seem to have the most profound effect on undermining motivation.   

Former Harvard president Lawrence Summers believes that “Roland is an evidence-driven guy rather than prejudice, instinct or tradition…”  For his own part, Fryer presents himself as a person who follows evidence wherever it leads him.  Yet these claims fly in the face of his actions.  If Fryer is so driven by eivdence, then he shouldn’t be ignoring the evidence provided by others regarding tangible rewards.  And he is not alone.  A few years ago, Chancellor Klein endorsed the 3rd-grade retention policy imposed by Mayor Bloomberg, even though strict retention policies in Chicago and many other school systems had not resulted in increased academic growth for students.  For all of their claims to the contrary, it’s not apparent that Fryer, Klein, or Bloomberg are making decisions informed by the most robust evidence available.    

The most disturbing aspect of all of this is Fryer’s appointment as the system’s “chief equality officer,” a role in which his primary charge will be to advise Klein on how to improve the academic achievement of Black and Latino students.  And this is his first big idea as equality officer? 

I’m all for bold experimentation in overcoming the seemingly insurmountable barriers to success in urban public schools.  But what about starting with other ideas that we already know are effective: mandating smaller class sizes, especially in the early grades and especially in classrooms with disadvantaged students; avoiding placing the least prepared educators in the most challenging schools; arguing for and creating assessment systems that include local assessments (as the state of Nebraska has done and as the New York Performance Standards Consortium has already developed in 28 schools across the state), which students and teachers are likely to find more meaningful and hence take them more seriously, just to name a few. 

Why experiment with kids in schools using methods of questionable effectiveness when many other evidence-based practices already exist?

I wish Brother Fryer well; he has a tough job ahead of him.  At the end of his tenure as chief equality officer, however, he can return to his privileged position at Harvard or just about anywhere else and find a bright future awaiting him.  I’m much more concerned about the woefully underserved kids in NYC schools he’ll be studying for the next few years.  Will his attractive incentives leave them better off than where they are now?                   

Will Harvard be part of St. Louis student's "American Dream"?

Is Soldan High senior headed to Harvard?

By Steve Giegerich
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

David Evans is in the admissions business at Harvard University. It's not too often, he says, that "we run into what we call the American Dream."

This year, it happened. The American Dream, in this instance, is a senior at Soldan High School. His name is Jeffrey Lynn Hall Jr. The dream arrived recently by e-mail; a formal letter from Cambridge, Mass., followed.

It began, "I am delighted to inform you that the committee on admissions and financial aid has voted to offer you a place in the Harvard Class of 2011."

With the exception of graduates of Metro High School, a magnet school with admissions requirements, Hall is the first St. Louis Public Schools student to receive a Harvard invitation in at least 35 years, according to Evans.

View full article