Tag Archive for 'Richard Whitmire'

Hurry-Up. Offend.

Veteran eduscribe Richard Whitmire argues in a Wash Post op-ed that DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee has “no choice but to play hardball” with teachers, unions and politicians.  

Running a hurry-up education offense is the only way Rhee can maintain a viable-sized school district that has dwindled to a mere 44,000 students, while the city’s charter school population is expected to grow to 28,000 this year….In the District, charters continue to attract more new students than Rhee’s schools. If Rhee can’t stanch or reverse that trend, her district slumps into irrelevancy, a fact of life that her union opponents seem incapable of grasping. If Rhee falters, the layoffs will continue.

I get the math, but not the logic.  If DC schools face an “existential threat” from charters (which Rhee supports), doesn’t it make more sense to make allies, not enemies of teachers unions?   The pitch is simple:  work with me or we’re both out of jobs.

The Obama Effect Sounds Good, However…

The “Obama Effect” sounds good in theory, but it’s going to take a lot more than inspiration to close the achievement gap, says Richard Whitmire.  Writing on U.S. News’ blog, the edublogger and president of the National Education Writers Association notes that he’d like nothing more than to jump on the Obama Effect bandwagon.

But as a veteran education reporter who spends a lot of time in classrooms, I see events that indicate the Obama education halo could tarnish early. And if that happens, the letdown will be a lot less fun than the buildup. Inspiration is great, but inspiration needs pathways to success. What I see developing for lower income and minority students are pathways closing up.

Whitmire lists some of the factors needed to make the Obama Effect more than a short-term, feel-good story: enhanced college access, dramatically improved high schools, higher teacher quality and way higher literacy rates.   “I want to apologize for being the picnic skunk. Really, I want to believe,” Whitmire concludes.  “In the real world, inspirations need well-lit pathways. And I’m just not seeing those pathways opening up for the Obama effect children. I wish I saw this differently, really I do.”

No apologies needed, Richard.  If it sounds too good to be true…

Whitmire’s Swan Song

One of the real good guys education journalism is saying farewell, for now at least, from ink-stained wretchdom.  Richard Whitmire, USA Today editorial writer and Why Boys Fail edublogger, has taken a buyout and bows out with a piece in today’s paper “How to turn Obama’s success into gains for black boys.”

There’s no question Obama was elected by Americans of all races and ethnicities to be president of all America. But many hope that his presidency will have a profound impact on one group most in need, African-American boys.

Whitmire notes that the American Dream “remains a more distant hope for black boys than it does for any other group.”  And while there’s potency in the symbolic value of an Obama presidency, that’s not enough. 

What matters today is determining how to leverage Obama’s historic achievement into a fresh beginning for black boys. Confidence is important, but it’s not sufficient. As Obama often says, success begins with parents willing to take responsibility, set limits and turn off the TV. But successful education reforms have shown that the right academic atmosphere can help overcome dysfunctional family situations.

He specifically touts a focus on literacy, modeling the practices of successful schools like Washington’s Key Academy, and creating college mentoring programs for young black males.  ”These are all reforms worthy of support,” Whitmire concludes.  “Obama’s symbolism is undeniably powerful, but it will take more than symbolism to go beyond yes-we-can sloganeering.”

Quo vadis, Whitmire?

Get Up, Stand Up

Here’s an idea that will appeal to every teacher who has had students who can’t sit still (read: every teacher):  Stand-up desks

“As part of a small but growing movement in northern Wisconsin and Minnesota that many teachers say is bound to gain popularity elsewhere, several schools are experimenting with their physical learning environments by incorporating stand-up workstations in the classroom, or, in one school, stability balls instead of traditional school desk chairs,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

Kids who are habitually fidgety or who suffer from attention disorders appear to show the most improvement, teachers tell the paper.  Richard Whitmire predicts a rush on orders for the desks.

What’s In a Name?

David Whitman’s new book, Sweating the Small Stuff, looks at Amistad Academy, KIPP, SEED, and other successful inner city schools that have done the best work at closing the achievement gap.  The book is winning early praise from the education cognoscenti.  But there’s a problem: 

“I hate his subtitle, ‘Inner-City Schools and the New Paternalism.’ And I like his decision to refer to this group as ‘the paternalistic schools’ even less,” writes Jay Mathews in the Washington Post.  USA Today’s Richard Whitmire, guestblogging at Eduwonk agrees, saying simply Whitman’s subtitle “needs work.” Whitney Tilson, a big charter school supporter, praises the book in his latest ed reform email blast, but adds, “I don’t like the word ‘paternalism.’  What the schools are doing is instilling not only knowledge, but the absolutely critical soft skills that are necessary to succeed in life, such as ‘kindness, decency, integrity, and hard work.’”

Checker Finn of the Fordham Foundation, which brought out Whitman’s book, notes that the schools themselves don’t much like the label of ‘paternalism’ and reject any suggestion that their schools condescend to students or their parents, which some feel is implied by the paternalism label…But it’s undeniable that these schools aim to change the lifestyles of those who attend them.”

David Whitman explains his title this way:

By paternalistic I mean that each of the six schools is a highly prescriptive institution that teaches students not just how to think, but also how to act according to what are commonly termed traditional, middle-class values. These paternalistic schools go beyond just teaching values as abstractions: the schools tell students exactly how they are expected to behave, and their behavior is closely monitored, with real rewards for compliance and penalties for noncompliance. Unlike the often forbidding paternalistic institutions of the past, these schools are prescriptive yet warm; teachers and principals, who sometimes serve in loco parentis, are both authoritative and caring figures. Teachers laugh with and cajole students, in addition to frequently directing them to stay on task.

It’s the rare person who works with or observes struggling inner city schools who doesn’t cite family disruption and a low-level of parenting skills as part of the problem.  As a teacher, I often thought my job was not just to teach my students but to help raise them.  Matthew Tabor gets it right when he notes that “very, very few education leaders, from individual community leaders to those on the national scene, are comfortable and honest enough to tell it like it is. We need to say what we are, what we aren’t, and get on with things.”  Fordham’s Mike Petrilli writes that as uncomfortable as it might be to discuss in public, “what these schools are doing is providing a middle-class, achievement-oriented culture to children who come out of a culture of poverty. And for that, the schools should be applauded (and emulated). It might not be politically correct to use these terms, but they are accurate. And that should count for something.”  

Whitman deserves praise for calling ‘em like he sees ‘em.  From what I know of the schools he profiles, his analysis–and use of the term paternalism–is spot on.  Jay Mathews worries that when a defender of these schools uses a freighted word like “paternalistic” those who don’t like the the schools methods will use the word like a cudgel.  Methinks he worries too much.  Nothing marginalizes criticism like success.  As long as these schools deliver on their promise of a solid education, you could call them “Pact with Lucifer” schools and they’d still be oversubscribed.  We ought to have reached a point where our patience with failing inner city children has shamed us into applauding and emulating success, whether or not we like the methods by which it’s achieved or take exception to how they are described.

A school’s culture matters a great deal.  In neighborhoods where children often lack strong adult guidance and authority–or are surrounded by adults who undermine it–it matters more than anything.  Whitman has done a valuable service by focusing our attention on it.  I’m looking forward to reading his book. 

Is It Better To Read Junk Than Not Read At All?

Where’s Richard Whitmire when you need him?  A pair of Wall Street Journal articles raise interesting questions about boys, reading, engaging reluctant readers…and sports trivia.  A Page One piece by John Hechinger points out what just about every elementary school teacher figures out 20 minutes into the job: if you want to see a boy engaged with a book, slip him any of the burgeoning genre of gross-out books.

Publishers are hawking more gory and gross books to appeal to an elusive market: boys — many of whom would rather go to the dentist than crack open “Little House on the Prairie.” Booksellers are also catering to teachers and parents desperate to make young males more literate. ‘There has been a real revolution’ in books that ‘have more kid appeal,’ especially when it comes to boys, says Ellie Berger, who oversees Scholastic’s trade division. ‘It’s a shift away from the drier books we all grew up with.’

The bottom line, the kind of book you used to sneak into school, and hoped not to get caught reading, has gone mainstream.  So is “Captain Underpants” the only way to turn boys into readers?  More to the point, is all reading created equal?  Does time spent with ”Sir Fartsalot Hunts the Booger?” help reading comprehension?  As a teacher, I’m all for engaging boys, but a steady diet of this fare invites the law of diminishing returns. 

In an unrelated WSJ piece, “Raising Bob Costas: Is Memorizing Sports Trivia Good for the Brain?” James Freeman frets that his son is spending all of his time memorizing sports trivia, and hopes to find an academic silver lining in this obsession from neuroscientists, Harvard’s Howard Gardner, and Core Knowledge founder E.D. Hirsch, Jr.

I figured that if anyone would trash the idea of kids consuming trivia it would be Hirsch but he found reasons to appreciate Will’s hobby. The University of Virginia professor recalled the line from Keats that “every thing is worth what it will fetch, so probably every mental pursuit takes its reality and worth from the ardour of the pursuer.” Mr. Hirsch said that it’s great to find an interest like Will’s because “it means you like to do something intensely, and you’re more likely to be successful in life” when you do.  But Mr. Hirsch was not suggesting that learning about football had any value at all in helping one to learn about academic subjects. “I don’t think there’s any benefit as far as ‘learning-to-learn,’ because that’s been exploded.”   

I’m with Freeman’s kid.  When I was his age, I could tell you from memory the teams who plated in every World Series ever played.  Numbers invariably invoked baseball statistics: 367, 511 and 714? Ty Cobb’s liftime batting average, Cy Young’s career wins and the number of homerun Babe Ruth hit, respectively. 

But you knew that. 

 Update:  Sir Fartsalot author Kevin Bolger weighs in below in the comments section.