the "magic bullet" myth

It is both a blessing and a curse that education reform has become part of the mainstream conversation. The blessing part is that, with so many people talking about how to fix public schools, something positive is bound to come out of it. The curse part is that the discourse has been so hijacked by simplistic movies like Waiting for Superman, that many in the public think that the fix is easy. "More accountability." "Better teachers." "Learn from Finland." Yes, all of these are real suggestions. No, I don't think any of them will solve the problem entire problem.

No one thing will solve the entire problem.

If one thing could fix public schools, they would be fixed by now. If the "magic bullet" (or even a magic brand of bullets) existed that closed achievement gaps, raised test scores, and prepared students for the future, there wouldn't be an issue with public schools. Every child would be on pace to succeed and I would channel my 'save the world' energies to something else... probably something related to food.

But of course this isn't the case. There isn't ever a problem (outside of math or stretch pants) where one size really fits all. When people are the variable, the answers are endless. So why are policy makers looking for a quick fix? Why do they treat public schools as a monolithic entity with little regard to the people who constitute them? I remember sitting in many a counselor meeting and being absolutely thrown but the presenters who spoke of students merely as data points and categories. "The Black males aren't doing this." "The Latina girls need that." Having my kids haphazardly lumped together infuriated me. Whatever statistical regression that the school district used to tell me how to work with kids I actually knew didn't take into account the real life issues that they faced.

That is the problem with this whole "magic bullet" mindset - it doesn't address the actual, tangible needs of the people it is supposed to help. Even within one city, every school is different. They have different kids, different cultures, different problems. The only way to help all kids succeed is to address their needs within their specific environments. To me, this is common sense, yet all schools are held to the same mandates... and the public wonders why there is so much stagnation.

Targeted, individualized intervention is necessary to actually make progress instead of just mandating it. Schools need to be trusted to know what their problems are, and then given the autonomy (and adequate resources) to fix them. Yes this is more difficult than just setting one policy that everyone must follow, but clearly that does not work. I really believe that if educators had more decision-making power about what goes on in their own schools, then real progress can be made. Top down management doesn't work when the top doesn't listen to or understand what is going on at the bottom.

It is time to stop looking for a quick-and-easy fix to a problem that has been around since the American education system began. Achievement gaps, low test scores, and unprepared youth are symptoms of larger social problems that come with the unequal opportunities that children have to receive a quality education. Equalizing funding (rather than relying solely property taxes, which are based on race and therefore exacerbate existing problems) would probably be the best place to start, but policy makers seem to think that demonizing educators, punishing schools, and creating more charter schools is a better plan. Unfortunately, this plan is not working. At all.

I think these "magic bullets" should be melted down into a magic pen so policy makers can write some legislation that actually works. But what do I know? I just study this stuff...

xo,
Linds

all kids deserve to be "smart alecs."

From everything I have read about teacher/student interactions, it is safe to assume that the majority of my teachers from 4th - 12th grades hated me. I wasn't a discipline problem in the traditional, throwing chairs and cursing people out kind of way. No, I was just a really smart Black kid who challenged her White teachers and actually wanted to learn stuff. I was what they called a "smart alec."

My 5th grade teacher was the only one to ever call me a "smart alec" to my face. It was during Science time (we didn't switch classes). She spelled "vertebrae" wrong and I corrected her. Then she told me I was wrong, so I went and got a dictionary and showed her that I was right. She didn't acknowledge that I was right and never apologized for calling me a name, she simply kept teaching... and spelling "vertebrae" incorrectly.

I got straight A's in her class, but she always gave me bad marks for behavior that I never got in trouble for at home.  How could I have? My parents were the ones who had the audacity to both teach me things outside of the classroom and tell me that it was okay to be smart. I had this 'can't nobody tell me nothing' attitude (though I would never have spoken that grammatically incorrect statement aloud), and I credit my academic success to the fact that I still have it. If I think you're wrong, I tell you. If I have an opinion, I share it. In college and graduate school, this is encouraged. In K-12, it certainly is not... especially if you're Black.

Both research and anecdotal evidence show me that being a girl probably saved me from getting into serious trouble. Black boys are disciplined at rates much higher than anyone else, usually for engaging in the same behaviors that are overlooked (or even encouraged) in others. The school-to-prision pipeline is very real, and in this "zero tolerance" educational environment that favors harsh consequences over teachable moments, the differential discipline of Black boys has serious consequences. Kids who are suspended are much more likely to drop out, and drop outs are much more likely to end up in prison... all for something as simple as questioning a teacher. It's funny in a depressingly unfair, we-need-to-fix-this ASAP kind of way. (I'm working on it, but I need your help!)

But even with this knowledge, I want my (future) kids to be "smart alecs" like their mama. Actually, I want all kids to be "smart alecs", but especially the kids of color who are so often stifled from showing their intelligence by both peers who don't think it's cool and educators who don't think kids 'like that' are smart. I want it to get to the point where kids of color are told that they can do anything while not being expected to do anything. For this to happen, ingrained stereotypes and deeply held beliefs about people of color in general will need to be dismantled and discarded. Kids internalize these negative messages before they even know that there is something else out there. It is up to us as a society to make sure that all messages are positive ones.

Are you up for it? I know I am.

xo,
Lindsay

reading while pretty.

I'm a public reader. With my earbuds in, iPhone silenced, and Kindle (with the hot pink cover) ready, I block out the world whenever possible. Or, rather, whenever I'm allowed. See, I always thought that it was a universal rule that earbuds = leave me alone, but apparently the exception is that when men find you attractive they can disturb you whenever they want. (What, you didn't know this either? Well, now you do. You're welcome, hot lady readers.)

The worst part is that some guys actually think that they are saving me from my Kindle by forcing conversation. On my way from NYC to South Jersey for Christmas, the guy sitting across from me interrupted me no less than 10 times to say that he "liked what he was looking at." (I even overheard him describing me to someone on the phone. So gross/creepy/wrong on so many levels.) My responses became slightly less polite the more he annoyed me, so he finally said "Ok, I'ma let you read."

Yes, please "let" me read. Thank you, kind sir, for allowing me to do something that brings me far more joy than engaging in conversation about who is better: Drake or J. Cole. (answer: Childish Gambino.)

Beyond the sheer rudeness of interrupting someone when they are reading, what bothers me the most is when the men (term used as loosely as possible) disturb my bliss to tell me that I'm "too pretty to be reading." Yes, because being smart and being pretty are mutually exclusive. One guy even said: "You shouldn't be reading other people's books, people should be reading books about you!" Wow. Clever. (My response was that I would rather have people reading books by me than about me, and he told me he could make that happen. The fact that he was shirtless in Central Park holding a half of a tuna sandwich led me to question his publishing connections.)

Of course, the implication here is that a woman can be too attractive to be intelligent; that we reach a certain threshold where beauty beats out brains and getting by on the latter is utterly ridiculous. And, of course, I find this utterly ridiculous. As stated above, being smart and being pretty are not mutually exclusive, and I hate the way that women are socially pigeon-holed to choose one over the other. TV and movies always portray the pretty girls as dumb (and/or bitchy) and the smart ones as dowdy (and/or bitchy). Pop culture is such a socializing agent that little girls watch these things and believe that they, too, have to pick. When I worked in high schools, I saw this all the time. And all the time it broke my heart.

I really hope the men who believe in this dichotomy don't have daughters. Their issues will give my therapist friends clients for life, but I wish it didn't have to be so. Hopefully more women will pick up the mantle of teaching young girls that they can (and should) be fabulous both inside the classroom and out.

xo,
Linds