Class versus Race

In reflecting upon student behavior and achievement at the various schools where I have worked, the question of whether race or class is the primary determinant of school and student performance is of great interest to me.  The first step in the process toward providing an answer based on my observations is to answer the question of whether or not the two can be 1) separated, and 2) ranked as primary and secondary in influence,

Let's start with the question of separation and let's begin by clearly stating that this discussion is limited to the issue of educational performance.  I say this because race as it manifests itself inside the four walls of the school building can be quite different than how race influences behavior outside the four walls of the building.  The belief is inside the four walls the environment can be somewhat (not completely) controlled whereas control is quite a bit more challenging outside the school building.  Further, by control, I mean the attitudes, values and beliefs of all who are involved,  If we assume (a potential problematic) that educators are largely above racist attitudes, then what happens inside the four walls is determined less by skin color and more by academic and social performance. If we assume, as sociologists such as Habermas and Bowers do, that effective processes of dialogue will help people overcome some of their deeply embedded negative attitudes about race, we can hope teachers have been the beneficiaries of the outcome of communicative action/competence and therefore are better prepared to not see color.  This may be simplistic in its application of Habermas and or Bowers, but for our discussion the point is that we certainly hope teachers are not carrying overly racist attitudes into the classroom.  While known this idealistic attitude can be tripped up by one racist teacher, let's use the dreaded "generally" for the sake of this discussion.    

Perspective on Alan Borsuk Education Column in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/mps-takeovers-abele-means-heading-in-a-different-direction-b99615729z1-348904831.html

Really interesting column on the task force.  What a political hot potato. Of course, the mention of community schools was of paramount interest to me.  

I wonder if MPS even realizes Hopkins Lloyd was reorganized a few years back as the first MPS community school.  Because that school was in the neighborhood where I did my field work and it was ostensibly interested in community engagement, I included it in my study.  I had a tough time getting entree and when I did talk to the principal, I got the impression he did not necessarily have the kind of positive attitude/leadership style needed to embrace the potential energy outside the four walls of the school building. Indeed, the people at Walnut Way told me he was not the most welcoming leader.  

It seemed like the most outward looking person at Hopkins Lloyd was Ruby, the coordinator of the Parent Center.  That place was happening.  She had the attitude of outreach and inclusion essential to building a community school culture.  Maybe she should have been the principal! 

When I looked at the literature on community schools across the country, I found that a principal with a positive attitude about the external community was an essential piece of creating a successful community schools.  A principal who can bridge those two worlds is essential to success, but my research findings indicated those types are really hard to find.  Going confidently outside those four walls is not necessarily part of the traditional leadership training programs. Some of it is tied to leadership style, some is the amount of time it takes to building relationships, some of it is history, and some is the different "language" between inside and outside the four walls. I called it the inside-outside dichotomy.  

One other flaw I continually came across when talking with educators about community involvement in school improvement was their inability to conceptualize community beyond parents (and in a low level easy, the bake sale volunteer-type).  Community in the community school model is much broader in its mobilization of people/organizations and more meaningful in the level of engagement.  

This narrow understanding of community leads me to my last point. While I am fully convinced this is a viable model for school improvement, it is a huge change from the common school tradition that has had a hold on schools since the turn of the century...the 20th century that is!  Too often I hear people use the word "paradigm shift" in a way that would make Thomas Kuhn roll over in his grave. People have a tendency to reduce the significance of the ideas that have created what Kuhn defined as a paradigm.  When  I wrote about community schools,  I saw them as so different from the traditional common school that I concluded only deep seated, in the Kuhnian sense revolutionary, change in the very ideas that have created school behavior would have to occur for them to be successful.  

I hope this task force grasps the depth of change necessary to create a true community school.  

Charter School debate

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/upshot/a-suburban-urban-divide-in-charter-school-success-rates.html?emc=eta1

In the comment section, a reader commented this author (a University of Michigan Professor of Education) was pro-privatization and anti-union. The following is my comment in rebut to that post.

As a person who recently finished his doctorate in Education, I can assure you most colleges and universities are neither anti-union nor pro-charter. In fact, they have a vested interest in protecting the status quo public school as that means no tampering with teacher certifications or administrative licensing. If charters can break through the bureaucratic hold of most state department of instruction rules and regulations, the results would be a decrease in the number of classes and teachers in Colleges and Schools of Education. You really think most Colleges of Education are going to embrace, for instance, Teach for America, a program that does not even require certified teachers, much less membership in the union! I suspect Charters use TFA more than traditional schools and that means a change to traditional teacher preparation programs. All I am saying is self-interest is alive and well on college campuses.

What to Make of It.

During a moment of silence at last Sunday's packer -Lions game, someone yelled "I hate all Muslims."  While I suspect there were more than a few people in stadium who share his attitude, especially in the emotional post-Paris environment, not one person made the peep in response to this declaration.  One person did say "Show Some Respect," but again, no other noise.  In a stadium with almost 79,000 people, the silence of the other 78,999 people spoke volumes.

I'm just trying to figure out what the silence meant.   Given just how horrific the actions of these terrorists, I was really surprised people did not clap in agreement or yell some response that sent a message of unity with the person.  I would have not been surprised had there been an outbreak of loud support for this perspective. One of my colleagues summed it up nicely when he said "Not that we all don't feel that way a little right now," but we all agreed it was ill-timed.

However, as anyone who attends a Packer game can attest, there are a lot of people who are unencumbered when it comes to expressing an opinion.  Could the "rules of a moment of silence" be so strong that these people dare not yell back in unison?  Or, are people willing to resist indicting an entire religion due to the behavior of a small, but powerful faction of extremists.

I do not have the answer and, frankly, am a little torn between both answers.

One person who is not is the Packer quarterback . What's more amazing than his perspective, is the fact he could hear the comment.  The fan was in my section and about four rows up from me,  I was 53 rows above the field so you do the math. http://es.pn/1HNpIAR

Small Steps

This past week, the Walnut Way Conservation Corp held a ribbon cutting ceremony for Phase I of a two phase building project.  The Innovation and Wellness Commons is another piece in the Walnut Way movement to revitalize the physical landscape and social spirit of the  Lindsay Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee. As part of a huge study I did on that area, the following was in my conclusion.  I wrote this in 2013 and am so pleased the organization was able to make it happen.  At the time, I was not sure if it was feasible.  (Please note:  MHNA is Walnut Way, Maple Heights is Lindsay Heights, and Bridge Harbor is Milwaukee.)

In perhaps its most ambitious response to creating a structure to support and encourage collaboration, the MHNA recently announced plans to build the Healthy Living Commons, a $6 million, 45,000 square foot mixed-use development that will create what Tommy calls “a healthy living campus for the neighborhood.” By far the largest financial undertaking in the history of the MHNA, the Healthy Living Commons will provide space for organizations and groups wanting to collaborate on behalf of Maple Heights.

Mrs. Anderson sees the groups and organizations “that land in the Healthy Living Commons will be of like mind around something, you know, their missions will be aligned in terms of working with the community.”  While the idea of school as a neighborhood hub is often mentioned as an important piece of the reconceptualization of the school-community relationship, Tommy talked about how the Healthy Living Commons could function as a focal point and gathering place for the residents of Maple Heights.  He describes the vision MHNA has for the Healthy Living Commons:

It will be a central hub where it’s easy to be healthy, easy to connect with people, it’s easy to find some something that you need, it’s easy to connect socially.  It’s built out of this idea ‘let’s really make this hub central to this campus, people can go to, but then trickle out and connect to the rest of the neighborhood.’  It’s about starting in one single spot and growing things out.  Growing this is like a vessel, like an artery from the heart, so the Commons is the heart.

Intended to be part of the commercial development of Maple Heights, the building will provide physical and social space for the partners and residents who are committed to Maple Heights. Located right in the center of the Maple Heights commercial corridor, Jack talked about “the transformation impact of having a building like this, what it looks like now and what it can become, and what it will do to the commercial corridor.” 

At a community event announcing the Healthy Living Commons project, residents reflected on both the past and future of Maple Heights.  One of the residents spoke about the significance of both this building and the people who will give the building its meaning and action: 

I grew up not too far from Susan, my little sister and Susan was best friends, so I guess to me, this whole thing is transformational, but it’s also a reinvigoration of the community that I grew up in.   This community, that’s why Susan so vested in it, but when I say that, because we know what this place can be, we know what it was, so part of it for me is the reinvigoration of the community.   I want people to know that it is going back to the path I used to see. Sitting on a porch with a handful of people in the midst of really bad stuff and having them focus away from that that bad stuff and have them say ‘we will take care that.’  I do know one thing.  If it’s gonna happen at all in Bridge Harbor, it’s gonna happen here in Maple Heights.

Is it possible this building can be so transformative?  My argument in matters such as this one directly explains my “uneasy optimist” attitude.  Is it naive to believe structures like the commons can send a powerful message of hope and change in one of the poorest zip codes in Milwaukee? What will be interesting is just what kind of message this building sends to the rest of the neighborhood.   Do the residents even see the message this project is conveying or is it too idealistic to think the renovation of one building can be a counter-narrative to the many buildings that are in complete disrepair?  The building’s importance goes beyond the businesses it will attract, the jobs it will bring, to how it affects the tacit knowledge that has been created through years of socialization.  As someone who has watched with great interest the revitalization of this neighborhood, is it plausible to think this building can be another part of the movement to truly change a neighborhood that has suffered from years of physical, social, and emotional neglect?  When I stare at this one building in the midst of so much despair, I have hope that it will be another  small step in the reemergence of a once-proud neighborhood.  However, considering this has been one of the most violent years in Milwaukee's history, I suspect there are many who would think this is like the proverbial pebble in the ocean.  That may be right, but if I really believed them, I could no longer be the Uneasy Optimist.....