Linda Hirshman and the 1%

I don't consider myself a fan of Linda Hirshman, whose screed Get to Work I confess I haven't read. I'm put off by her advice that an educated woman should have at most one child (any more will interfere with her career), and shouldn't study art because it doesn't lead to well-paid jobs.

So I was pleasantly surprised to find myself agreeing with much of her article, It's about the 1%. Her central point is that well-paid jobs have gotten more and more demanding over the past several decades.

(An academic woman I know told me: "[Famous Academic Bigshot] once gave me the advice that I should be careful to publish one good article a year if I wanted tenure. I didn't have the heart to tell him that it had gone up to two articles a year.")

I especially liked Hirshman's closing:

When ordinary working men got the chance to fight for a 40 hour week, they fought, in many days, to the death. The murderous police attack on labor we call the Haymarket was a response to a rally for an eight-hour day! When did this become a woman's problem? Calling it one only means it will never get addressed. Just like every other problem assigned to women.

I'm sure she's right about "women's problems", and it gives me a moment of insight into the current conversation about education. When people go on about how are kids aren't being correctly prepared for corporate jobs, what they're trying to say is, "Look! Education actually matters! It actually intersects with things we care about, like the corporate workforce!" No wonder they're nonplussed by people like me saying "shouldn't there be a point to education besides the ability to get paid?" What other point could there possibly be?

Overachiever's footnote: I also liked this article about women and work by Sandra Tsing Loh: "I Choose My Choice!"

Thomas Friedman is Clueless

In today's NYTimes, Average is Over, Part II by Thomas Friedman.

Why am I utterly infuriated? Let me count the ways:

1.) Friedman seems to be living in a parallel universe where parents control the school system. He quotes Jon Schnur saying that "too many kids are not coming out of K-12 prepared for [postsecondary education], and too many parents don’t get it."

Oh really? Lots of parents get that something is wrong with their local schools, and then they discover that they are powerless to effect change. Talk to the parents at kitchen table math, who certainly get that American math education is under par, and ask where their years of activism have gotten them. Talk to Chris over at A Blog About School, and see how much effect he's had on his school system's use of authoritarian discipline.

2.) Friedman seems to think we should ask CEOs what they want, and then design our society to match their needs. I think we should figure out what kind of society we want, and let the CEOs figure out how to run their companies within it. Yes, I'm a far-out lefty.

Currently, a large fraction of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Of those who are employed, many find themselves working punishingly long hours just to keep their jobs. The top jobs are higher-pressured than ever before (see Linda Hirshmann's article, "It's About the 1%").

Automation and outsourcing first took away blue-collar assembly jobs, but increasingly they're taking away mid-level white-collar jobs as well. We're left with a few high-paid, high-education jobs that will never employ more than a small fraction of the population (e.g., college professor, doctor), and a great many low-level jobs (e.g., nursing, sanitation) that don't pay a middle-class wage. This is not the model of a functioning society.

We are past overdue for serious changes in the American workplace. We need to figure out what employment should look like in a world where more and more work is automated. We need powerful labor unions (remember them?) who will fight for worker's rights. We need shorter workweeks, or at the very least we should start enforcing the 40-hour work week for white-collar workers. Everyone who works full-time should be guaranteed decent wages.

3.) We can certainly do a much better job of educating our kids, and I'm in favor of doing so. But education doesn't create jobs. The fact that college-educated folks have, on average, lower levels of unemployment and earn more than those without college degrees doesn't imply that if we just get more kids through college, jobs will magically appear for them. The large number of unemployed and underemployed recent college graduates speaks to the futility of this plan.

Spitting Image Explains Religion

First up, Spitting Image visits the famously well-intentioned but woolly Church of England, with "You Couldn't Meet a Nicer Bloke Than God":

Next, an exercise in ecumenism with "Our God's Bigger Than Your God":

By now, you'll be ready to join the Atheist Tabernacle Choir!

Pathetic

In today's NYTimes, "Field of Dashed Dreams" describes President Obama's speaking tour of the midwest. Here's part of what he said:

“Everybody cannot get 100 percent of what they want. Now, for those of you who are married, there is an analogy here. I basically let Michelle have 90 percent of what she wants. But, at a certain point, I have to draw the line and say, ‘Give me my little 10 percent.’ ”

Oh, isn't that cute (barf.) What is wrong with this guy?

Actually, he negotiates with Michelle more effectively than he does with the Republicans.

And this doesn't help:

“In my house,” Obama noted, “if I said, ‘You know, Michelle, honey, we got to cut back, so we’re going to have you stop shopping completely. You can’t buy shoes; you can’t buy dresses; but I’m keeping my golf clubs.’ You know, that wouldn’t go over so well.”

What a slap in the face to the millions of women out there who are facing much bigger problems than how many shoes to buy. How about the many women who are the sole breadwinner for their families?

Save Our Schools March

There's a big march going on in Washington today -- the "Save Our Schools" march.  I couldn't get down to Washington (family stuff) but it sounds wonderful.  Unfortunately, everybody's so worked up about the debt limit that the Save Our Schools march isn't getting much press.  The New York Times apparently hasn't heard of it.

James Boutin of An Urban Teacher's Education has blogged the march.

Anthony Cody of edweek has blogged the march.

lodesterre of Conducting the Inner Light  has blogged the march.

A Revolting Plate

Not to harp on the subject, but here's a couple of suggested meals from the USDA:

Now there's some food you couldn't give away to the Donner Party.  "No thanks, I'll just keep eating Grandma's liver."

Really, what's wrong with these people?  Have they never eaten a decent meal in their lives?

P.S. I've found one more image of USDA sample meals:

A Plate of Cultural Bias

Somewhat off topic, Nutrition Plate Unveiled to Replace the Food Pyramid.

My first thought when I saw this was how very biased it was.  As the proud mother of a Chinese-American child, and a happy consumer of Chinese food whenever possible, I looked at this and thought:  what?  a fork, and no chopsticks?  And what's with the "Dairy" circle?  Asians and others all over the world rarely eat dairy products, and have excellent health.

Speaking of dairy products, one of the commenters wrote:

Every meal should include foods from the FOUR BASIC FOOD GROUPS:

Meat (Meat, Fish, Eggs)
Dairy (Milk, Cheese)
Fruits & Vegetables (Apples, Tomatoes, Spinach, Green Beans)
Starch (Bread, Potatoes, Corn, Pasta/Macaroni)

If this sounds familiar . . . it was taught in schools up until the Obesity Epidemic.

Maybe we should consider it again.

I confess that I grew up with the schema of the four basic food groups, and I only just noticed that it's a total violation of Jewish dietary law.  It's also extremely heavy in protein and fat.

Back to the new plate, what's with the nonsensical color choices?  Why should protein be purple, or grains orange?

It's just not helpful to approach a big, sprawling, diverse issue in a top-down, one-size-fits-all fashion, whether it's food or education.

The only good thing I have to say about this new plate design is that it will make no difference whatever to my family's day-to-day life.  I wish I could say the same about No Child Left Behind.

What Does a Superintendent Do?

From Bad Teachers, by Guy Strickland:

... the superintendent comes to realize that it is not her job to decide where the educational "train" will go; the superintendent's job is merely to keep the train running.

In fact, the superintendent is no longer an educator; he is a corporate manager hired by the school board. In fact, the skills that the school board expects from the superintendent have nothing to do with either teaching or learning. What the school board wants from an administrator is conservative day-to-day management of a large, financially critical enterprise. That requires good political and managerial skills, a knowledge of finance and budgeting, planning ability, and god public relations skills. If the superintendent is ever fired, his termination would have more to do with a lack of management or political skills than with any failure on the superintendent's part as an educator.

EARMARKS?

I interrupt my regularly scheduled blog with a few political remarks.

I'm listening to President Obama's press conference after the Republicans took back the House in yesterday's midterm election.  He claims that Americans are frustrated because his administration was in such a hurry to get things done that they didn't clean up how things are done in Washington.  He promised to take another look at earmarks (the process by which Congressmen add little sweeteners to legislation.)

Wrong, wrong, wrong!  People like me are frustrated because Obama didn't do enough in that magical 2-year window when he had a governing majority.  Does anyone outside Washington spend their time worrying about earmarks?  I doubt it. 

He promises to work harder for consensus, a lost cause if there ever was one.  The Republicans have no interest in reaching consensus, and Obama just looks like a weakling for attempting it.

Neither Obama nor any of the press mentioned what I believe to be the central problem of our time:  the concentration of our country's wealth in the hands of a very few Americans.  No search for consensus or yapping about preparing our children for the future can ameliorate our regressive tax structure and government policies that funnel even more money into the accounts of the filthy rich.

And now, back to our blog ---

Education Doesn't Create Jobs

Here's an interesting article by David Sirota: The Neoliberal Bait and Switch.

Among other things, he argues that the noise made by politicians regarding education is really just a smokescreen, a distraction from the real issues of corporate-driven economic policies. This makes a lot of sense to me.

The business of America

[From Chris, originally posted at ABlogAboutSchool]

Martha Nussbaum:

Eager for economic growth, our nation, like many others, has begun to think of education in narrowly instrumental terms, as a set of useful skills that can generate short-term profit for industry. What is getting lost in the competitive flurry is the future of democracy.

As Socrates knew long ago, any democracy is a “noble but sluggish horse.” It needs lively watchful thought to keep it awake. This means that citizens need to cultivate the skill for which Socrates lost his life: the ability to criticize tradition and authority, to keep examining self and other, to accept no speech or proposal until one has tested it with one’s very own reasoning. By now psychological research confirms Socrates’ diagnosis: people have an alarming capacity to defer to authority and to peer pressure. Democracy can’t survive if we don’t limit these baneful tendencies, cultivating habits of inquisitive and critical thought. . . .

And yet, all over the world, the humanities, the arts, and even history are being cut away to make room for profit-making skills.

The White House last week:

Today, President Obama announced the launch of Change the Equation, a CEO-led effort to dramatically improve education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), as part of his “Educate to Innovate” campaign. . . . In his remarks to day, the President emphasized the importance of providing American students with a solid foundation in these subjects in order to compete in the global economy:

“As I discussed this morning with my Export Council, our prosperity in a 21st century global marketplace depends on our ability to compete with nations around the world.”

News reports also noted:

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology also released recommendations Thursday: Over the next decade the federal government should help recruit and train 100,000 STEM teachers, support the creation of 1,000 new STEM-focused schools, and reward the top 5 percent of STEM teachers.

I think the survival of democratic values in our country is more important, not to mention more genuinely at risk, than our competitive advantage in the global marketplace. Why is there no blue-ribbon panel trying to ensure that our schools serve that goal? On the other hand, I shudder to imagine the top-down “pro-democracy” curriculum -- with its own standardized tests, no doubt -- that such a panel would probably propose. (On that, more here.)

Platitudes from the President

President Obama gave his back-to-school speech today at Masterman High School in Philadelphia. It was a strange choice -- Masterman is a high-achieving, exclusive school whose students hardly need a pep talk. However, that's what they got.

Your future is in your hands. Your life is what you make of it. And nothing – absolutely nothing – is beyond your reach. So long as you’re willing to dream big. So long as you’re willing to work hard. So long as you’re willing to stay focused on your education.

Oh really? If you graduate from your fancy college with tens of thousands of dollars in debt and there's no job to be had, lots of things will be beyond your reach.

But here’s your job. Showing up to school on time. Paying attention in class. Doing your homework. Studying for exams.

It's insulting to tell hard-working, ambitious, cream-of-the-crop kids that they should show up to school on time. They know that already. That's how they got to Masterman. Even when the President visits a high-achieving school, he's talking to low-achieving kids.

My concern for schools like Masterman is that the kids are working TOO hard at mostly unnecessary tasks and are under too much pressure. But that possibility is never addressed by educrats.

Guest post: Big Brother gets bigger

Chris here from ABlogAboutSchool. FedUpMom suggested that I might cross-post some of my thoughts over here from time to time, so here’s my first guest post.

Glenn Greenwald, probably my all-time favorite blogger, writes this week about “how children are being trained to give up all privacy, and to be good, dutiful Surveillance State citizens, through constant, pervasive surveillance in schools,” which are “[t]raining children from an early age to have no expectation of privacy -- to live on the assumption that their every move and even thought (which is what Internet activity is) will be monitored and recorded by authority figures . . .”

Greenwald cites this article:

Whether it is a district surveilling students in their bedrooms via webcam, conducting random drug or locker searches, strip-searching students, lowering the standard for searching students to “reasonable suspicion” from “probable cause,” disciplining students for conduct outside of school hours, searching their cellphones and text messages, or allegedly forcing them to undergo pregnancy testing, student privacy is under increasing threat.

The other day I mentioned a Connecticut school district that wanted to require students to carry an ID card with an RFID chip so that they could track their location. The surveillance capability included locating the student if they were off school premises and in town. . . .

It strikes me that schools are grooming our youth to simply accept being tracked and monitored wherever they go and that anything they do, anywhere, can be used against them in school or elsewhere. Is this really how we want to raise our children? . . .

It’s time for a national dialogue about student privacy, while there are still some remnants of it left.

Isn’t this of a piece with all the emphasis on being quiet obedient hard workers, with the treatment of children as objects to be manipulated, with the conception of children as future employees, with the use of recess as a coercion tool and parents as homework police, with the medication of kids who won’t sit still, with the devaluing of the humanities, with the neglect of qualities like curiosity, skepticism, and the ability to ask a good question -- that is, with all the things that follow from a system rooted in high-stakes testing? If you were trying to make America a more authoritarian, less democratic place, isn’t high-stakes testing exactly the educational approach you would choose?

(Cross-posted here.)

Treating the Healthiest Patients

If you were going to choose a doctor, what would you look for? You'd like a doctor with a low mortality rate, right?

Not so fast! In a famous study (I'll post the reference as soon as I find it!) of the effects of ranking doctors by mortality rates, it was found that doctors started winnowing out the riskiest patients to improve their rates. It's much easier to attain a low mortality rate if you only accept the strongest, healthiest patients to begin with.

The exact same thing has happened, predictably, with NCLB. There's a population of kids who will perform well on standardized tests no matter what the school does, namely bright, motivated kids from solid middle-class backgrounds. Naturally, these are the students all the public schools want to teach.

I started out sympathetic to the principal profiled in this New York Times article, A Popular Principal, Wounded by Government's Good Intentions. Joyce Irvine was the principal at Wheeler Elementary School in Burlington, Vt. She worked hard and was well-liked, but the school had low test scores, because the district contains many children of refugees. Most of the children at her school are poor, some are traumatized, many don't speak English well, and many arrive with no previous education.

So what was Ms. Irvine's plan to improve the school? Intensive English classes? Adult education for the undereducated parents, who could then help teach the kids? No. Her plan was to transform the school into an arts magnet, in order to attract middle-class kids who would rack up high test scores.

And that's where I stopped feeling sympathetic to Ms. Irvine.