GROUPS ASK CONGRESS TO ADDRESS EQUITY ISSUES IN "NO CHILD" REAUTHORIZATION

Today, the Forum on Educational Accountability, a national network of major education, civil rights, religious, disability, parent, civic and labor groups which FairTest staffs, issued a detailed proposal for Congress to address as part of the pending overhaul of the deeply flawed "No Child Left Behind" law.

The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA) today called on U.S. policymakers to address Opportunity to Learn concerns, such as directing federal funds to enhance school equity, in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In a statement titled "All Children Deserve the Opportunity to Learn" the education, civil rights and other leaders also called on the new National Commission on Education Equity and Excellence, announced by Education Secretary Arne Duncan and beginning its deliberations today, to adopt FEA's recommendations.

The FEA statement urges Congress to take action to address six core areas:
     - address funding disparities and equity in education;
     - support students with diverse learning needs, both in and out of school;
     - take additional steps to ensure all children have access to highly effective teachers, leaders and other school personnel;
     - provide increased access to opportunity through high quality preschool;
     - work with states to ensure adequate school facilities, programs, and services; and
     - promote school policies, including discipline, that ensure a climate conducive to learning.

"Most people agree that all children deserve an opportunity to learn to their fullest potential," explained Molly Hunter, director of the Education Justice Project at the Education Law Center. "The FEA statement makes clear what they really need to succeed. These simple steps would help kids and our communities succeed, and would make our nation stronger." 

ICET World Assembly 2011 International Council on Education for Teaching CFP

ICET World Assembly 2011 (Glascow) will be focusing on systematic approaches to improve excellence in all aspects of teacher education and development. Specifically presentations will be concerned with the following subthemes:

• Social Inclusion and Social Justice
• Professional Learning and Leadership
• Cultural, Spiritual and Creative Education
• Lifelong Learning and Engagement
• Pedagogy and Practice
• Politics and Policy
• Accountability, Evaluation and Accreditation

Individuals or groups submitting proposals are asked to reflect on one or more of these themes in their papers or presentations. All conference presentation proposals must be submitted by Friday, March 11, 2011.  An email to confirm receipt of proposals will be sent within a 48-hour period.

Submissions received after March 11 will be placed on the Reserve List for placement in the programme only if space is available. Notification of this placement may not occur until early April.

ICET is a conference where different communities come together: researchers, policy makers and practitioners. It is not a traditional research conference so, while, there is the opportunity for proposals to be refereed, and for people to write research papers, teacher education and school leadership-related policy and practice initiatives are also welcomed and encouraged.

Details on submissions can be found on the ITEC website.  

Important ITEC Dates - 2010-'11

October 1, 2010 Online registration opens
January 14, 2011 Opening of Online Registration
March 11, 2011 Call for proposals closes
March 25, 2011 Notification of Acceptance/Decline
April 15, 2011 Feedback to refereed papers
June 1, 2011 Congress programme and abstracts posted on website
June 1, 2011 Refereed papers are due
June 15, 2011 Presenters must have registered
July 7, 2011 Non Refereed papers are due

Who Are the Leaders We Can Trust?

These past few weeks we have witnessed uprisings around the world. Issues of wealth, power, and injustices have fueled these events. Citizens took to the streets to protest issues of importance to them including the decline in their quality of life, the social inequities that continue to develop and flourish, and the draconian leadership that disregards the needs of its people. Declines in global economies are part of the reason for these events, but a primary reason for this unrest is the increasing distrust of those who govern us.

So, who and what do we trust? Which of our long-standing, hard fought for institutions can we trust anymore? And how do we, as educational leaders, earn and maintain trust in these changing times while we continue to work to build coalitions and confidence, even as we are under attack?

For over a decade there has been a  growing line of K-12 school research that has demonstrated the importance of trust (among all constituent groups) and student success (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Hoy, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 1998)[1] and the relationship between trust and positive school cultures (Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy, 2006). As part of this research, Tschannen-Moran (2004) identified five facets of trustworthiness: openness, benevolence, reliability, competency, and honesty. These facets can be developed through regular, positive interactions that highlight trustworthiness and commitment. Couldn’t an argument be made that trust is equally essential when talking about higher education and/or our elected officials?

Frank Luntz’s New York Times Bestseller, What Americans Really Want…Really[2], presents findings from his research with 6,400 Americans that explored what they value now and for their future. As part of this work, he identifies ten things that Americans want from their elected officials. These include: being genuine in what they say and do, taking action rather than saying what they will do, publicizing what has been accomplished, asking people what they think and actually listening to their responses, acknowledging and empathizing with frustrations facing the populace, using communications and messages that appeal to voters’ hearts as well as their heads, admitting mistakes, being passionate about their work and the people they represent, and demonstrating their appreciation to those who elected them (p. 135-136). In essence, Luntz is restating that we want elected officials who are open, honest,  and benevolent. We want elected officials that we can trust.

Luntz suggests that it will “take a great deal…”  if we are to put our country “…back on the right track, restore confidence in the future, renew trust in our institutions, and revitalize faith in ourselves…”(p. 251). He states, “We have to go back to square one and reexamine who we are as a people, what makes us unique as a nation, and what truly needs to get done” (p. 251).  The last chapter of the book offers nine priority areas as recommendations. Among these is the need for “Rebuilding the mutual commitment between employer and employee” (p. 262). Tax policies, regulatory oversight, and global economic forces all influence our economy and working conditions. Luntz claims that lack of trust and confidence in each other is what has damaged the American economy. He further claims that when corporations and labor unions have “adopted a take-no-prisoners approach to negotiations… that the battlefield is strewn with casualties” (p. 265). These casualties tend to be the workers, not those who are engaged in the head-to-head negotiation process.

Throughout U. S. history, class struggle related to the labor movement has often been violent.  Adamic’s 1934 book, Dynamite: The Story of Class Violence in America[3], re-released in 2008, offers a first person account of labor-management struggles in American history. He reminds us that unions were formed to protect the rights of workers and to allow for collective bargaining.  Even having a collective voice has not always been enough to protect workers, though. For example, in the 19^th century immigrant workers rioted to protest their mistreatment. When non-violent strikes did not produce results, working class men and women, retaliating against social injustices and exploitation, fought back.  Although the times and some issues are different, class warfare is continuing today throughout the world with recent uprisings in Eqypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, other countries, and Wisconsin. We are fortunate that there has not been violence in Wisconsin—yet.

Robert Reich recently posted an interesting essay titled, Exposing the Republicans’ 3-Part Strategy to Tear the Middle Class Apart—Let’s Stop them in Wisconsin on the alternet.org website[4] . He warns that the Republican strategy is “to split the vast middle and working class” and includes “pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector workers against non-public, older workers within sight of Medicare and Social Security against younger workers…, and the poor against the working class” so that no one will notice that the rich are getting richer while everyone else sacrifices. Teachers’ unions are being especially hard hit by these tactics, no great surprise after the onslaught of anti-teacher union and anti-public education rhetoric that has been flooding the media with stories about the alleged educational crisis facing our nation[5]&[6].  There is an increasing emphasis on creating and employing policies and strategies that support individual benefits and profit rather than those that call for collective action and widespread benefit to others.

The Think Tank Review Center at the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) housed at the University of Colorado, Boulder, utilizes a long list of nationally recognized educational researchers as reviewers of think tank and other “research” reports[7] . At last week’s American Association of School Administrators’ meeting, Kevin Weiner, Director of NEPC, presented information about the increasing misuse and manipulation of education research by policy makers and government officials.  Too often, “research that was poorly designed, used weak research methodology and data collection practices…is resulting in inaccurate, unsupported policy recommendations”[8]. If we are to trust one another, the research being promoted and used should be valid, rigorous, and authentic. We need reliable findings produced by competent researchers informing the decision making processes of our elected officials.

The 3-part strategy to tear the middle class apart, according to Reich, includes refocusing budget battles in Washington by simultaneously creating alarm over the national debt while eliminating programs of importance to the majority of American citizens. He claims the second strategy of this plan is being played at the state level and includes villainizing public employees, especially those who are unionized, implying or directly accusing them of being the ones who are responsible for state budget woes.

The third strategy, “distortion of the constitution”, which is being enacted in the Supreme Court, according to Reich, continues to provide corporations with rights normally reserved for citizens. Although judges are supposed to be impartial, Reich points out that some members of the Supreme Court have become “active strategists in the Republican Party” and participated in a “closed-door session with Michele Bachman’s Tea Party caucus” last month. We want leaders who are honest, transparent, and honorable. These types of actions do not create or support trust.

Today’s alternet.org update on the developments in Wisconsin[9], arguably a left-leaning account of these events according to some, reminds us that “Wisconsin appears to be the beginning of a larger movement…Nine other Republican governors from Nevada to New Jersey are also targeting unions with various proposals…” According to this and other articles and commentaries published recently, claims of financial crises that necessitate these types of union-busting actions are being overstated or perhaps even created. The fear of not having enough money to survive is what helped to foster the current uprisings in the Middle East. This same type of fear, founded or unfounded, supported the sweeping political changes in our last major elections.

Distrust grows when people are afraid. People blame others when they distrust. Right now, many politicians are claiming that unions are to blame for our nation’s woes. Rather than engaging union officials in negotiations and collective action campaigns, focused on a greater good for all, we are increasingly falling into a winner takes all mindset—and that is not good for anyone but the very few who win while everyone else loses. And even for those few who win initially, it is a short-lived win. Without trust in our government and our leaders, everyone loses.

---

[1] Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.  New York: Russell Sage Foundation;  Hoy, W. K. (2002). Faculty trust: A key to student achievement. Journal of School Public Relations, 23, 88-103.; Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 425-446;

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.; Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). Trust and collaboration in urban elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

[2] Luntz, F. I. (2009). What Americans Really Want…Really. Hyperion: New York.

[3]Adamic, L. (2008). Dynamite: The Story of Class Violence in America. AK Press: Edinburgh.

[4] Reich, R. (2/20/2011). Exposing the republicans’ 3-Part strategy to tear the middle class apart—Let’s stop them in Wisconsin. http://www.alternet.org/story/149981/ accessed February 20, 2011.

[5] Waiting for Superman is one recent example of this rhetoric.

[6] Reich points out that America’s wealthiest often have their income taxed at a rate of 15% as capital gains. He claims that if the earnings of 13 top hedge-fund managers were taxed as ordinary income, these funds would support 300,000 teachers’ salaries and benefits for a year.

[7] Go to http://www.nepc.org  to see more about the Think Tank Review Center, including the list of research panelists who review reports that are influencing policy makers.  They also publish the Bunkum Awards, recognizing those Think Tanks and Institutes (and the U.S. Department of Education) with the least valid research and resulting claims.

[8] See the AASA website for information about all of the conference highlights and major presentations.

[9] See 10 Developments in the huge story of Wisconsin’s uprising (updated) by Joshua Holland (http://www.alternet.org/news/149986/10)

UCEA Code of Ethics for the Preparation of Educational Leaders

Members of the UCEA Ethics Committee have worked for several years to develop a code of ethics guiding the leadership development work of educational leadership faculty.  This code is shared below for commentary.

  UCEA Code of Ethics for the Preparation of Educational Leaders

This code is meant to serve as a living document of what we aspire to achieve as professors of Educational Leadership.  The hope is that this code will not be static, but that there will be dialogue and discussion related to it frequently, and that there will be revisions as necessary through the UCEA standing ethics committee and UCEA plenum.

As educators and scholars within the field of educational leadership, we strive individually and collegially to:

• Foster the capacity to critique and challenge the status quo within the field of educational leadership.
• Cultivate critique and challenge trends in policy and governance, such as national, state, organizational, professional, and accreditation standards of practice and market-driven forces.
• Enable access to quality education, taking into account not just academic attainment but also the development of the whole student.
• Value and respect the intrinsic worth of individuals both personally and within multiple communities
• Value and respect diversity of person, practice, and thought.
• Practice, with integrity, teaching, research, service, and advising.
• Embrace responsibility for improving the profession
• Engage in critical reflection for professional growth.
• Develop and improve scholarly competence.
• Model the ethical behaviors we advocate above.

Racing towards the bottom

With the financial collapse of 2008 and chronically high unemployment rates left in its wake, many states and districts continue to confront dire budgetary scenarios. While the school-age population is increasing and inflation is non-existent, the anti-tax fetishism remains ever-present. Like the 1970s, contemporary public school administrators and their school boards confront increasingly stark policy choices as to which academic and extra-curricular programs are to be cut, which are to be reduced, and which will have to do “more with less. All of these decisions affect teachers and students, with some teachers being “RIF-ed” (Reduced in Force) and students experiencing larger class sizes and fewer curricular and extra-curricular options, as well as being required to pay newly established fees for certain offerings. In larger districts, and particularly urban districts, public schools deemed as failing are closed and their students distributed to various charter school operators, in the name of cost-containment and improving academic achievement--although the data are very muddled on both points.

However, these budget scenarios are being fueled by some critical myths. The first myth is that the current budget woes are largely being driven by greedy public employees, who are paid too much, whose pensions are too rich, and whose health benefits are too lavish. The second myth is that the US taxpayer and, more importantly, corporate America are being crushed by onerous levels of taxation to pay for these public services. Consequently, the mythology declares that outrageous levels of public spending are strangling the economic recovery.

Yet if you look at the data, our level of taxation is lower than at any time since the Truman administration. To be quite blunt, we are currently paying less for governmental services than what our parents and grandparents did. Similarly, levels of corporate taxation are at historically low levels ().

Furthermore, this hyperbolic political focus on supposedly greedy public employees ignores where the real greed is--Wall Street. Financial deregulation led to a massive speculative bubble that popped in 2008. Instead of letting shareholders and business leaders take the typical financial haircut for their foolishness, we now have seen the federal government deem some businesses as “too big to fail” and these profligate corporations were bailed out by US taxpayers. Yet many of these businesses made spectacularly reckless financial decisions, while showering their top leadership with platinum perks, bonuses and eventual “parachutes.” Consequently, Income inequality has soared in the last 30 years. As columnist Nick Kristoff observed:

C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.

Such dramatic changes in income distribution are not acts of God, they’re the result of conscious policy decisions by our elected leaders at all levels of government. Meanwhile, unemployed human beings continue to have their miserly benefits cut by politicians supposedly taking courageous stands against deficit spending, although unemployment benefits provide more stabilization to the economy than budget and tax cuts.

As a result, the current claims regarding the causes of fiscal poverty by governors, state legislatures, and the federal government, don’t survive intense scrutiny. There are resources available to adequately fund public education. But we’re living in an era where public services are seen as inherently “bad” in terms of quality, efficacy, and morality. So, besides budget reductions, some governors are pushing for diverting even more money away from public schools, towards charter schools and even private schools via vouchers. Such wholesale defunding of public education could have lasting detrimental affects upon our long-standing system of common schools.

 Instead of “Racing towards the Top,” which is the current presidential administration’s “reformy” mantra, our public school system is being forced to race to the bottom, in the name of economic hard times and anti-tax paranoia. My only consolation to offer readers is that history demonstrates that it’s exceedingly difficult to impose educational change in an area of fiscal retrenchment. Most of the proposed reforms of the 1970s died unimplemented due to the costs inflicted by that era’s high inflation. Today, in a somewhat similar period of economic decline, while the system may not be “reformed” it could be badly weakened through systemic underfunding--underfunding that is largely unnecessary, regardless of protestations of our elected leaders to the contrary. As with all things, time will tell as to what the long-term impact is to our public schools--but the trends are worrisome.