No One Wants To Think About That Cleveland Story

I’ve noticed that, despite media saturation with the hideous story of the decade-long imprisonment, torture and rape of three women in Cleveland, people around me aren’t talking, blogging, Facebooking or Tweeting about it. It’s not even mentioned in passing, unlike so many other high-profile crimes in recent memory. I think this one is just too horrible to allow one’s mind to dwell on. I know it’s been plaguing me, and I keep trying not to think about it. But there’s something I think really needs to be said, and no one around me is saying it, probably because they can't stand thinking about it, either.

This is an extreme case of behavior that is actually horrifyingly common and emerges every single day, all over the world, in thousands of instances of domestic abuse and rape. In America, one in four women has experienced domestic violence in her lifetime. On average, more than three women and one man are murdered by their intimate partners in this country every day. Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend to 3 million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year. (Source.) Almost 18 million women and almost 3 million men in the United States have  been raped. One of every six women has  been raped at some time. In a single year,  more than 300,000 women and almost 93,000 men are estimated to have been raped. (Source.)

It’s really easy to say that Ariel Castro is a psycho and leave it at that. But what about all the thousands and thousands of others? The biggest difference between all those incidents and this one is duration. Yes, it takes a special degree of evil to keep up the lie for a decade, but not a special kind. The kind of evil committed by Ariel Castro is occurring all around us, every day--mostly, though not entirely, committed by men.

I’m sure there are many, many contributing factors we need to confront as a society. I’m no expert. But I’m pretty damn sure we will change nothing if we can’t even stand talking about it.

Education Is None of Our Business

Business-model education reform is not just wrong about education. It’s wrong about business.

The idea is that, like a business, we should measure outcomes in schools (using test scores) and hold workers (teachers) responsible for meeting stated goals. There are lots and lots of reasons why public schools are inherently different than businesses and therefore shouldn’t be run the same way. To name a few: all data is not equal, and test scores are qualitatively different than profit and loss figures; no business tries to serve every single person in a community, while public schools are required to; the ability of workers to influence outcome is quite different when you’re talking about teaching children vs manufacturing widgets; etc.

But beyond all that is the plain fact that businesses aren’t run the way business-model education reformers say they are.

The education reforms of the past decade have schools giving lots of standardized tests to students in order to obtain data on which to base decisions, including extreme measures like closing schools, and now, firing teachers as well. Every kid throughout the state takes the same tests. Every kid is held to the same standard. Some presumably non-arbitrary score is deemed proficient for everyone. Business-model education reform claims to treat test data like businesses treat sales and profits.

But is that how businesses are run? When Starbucks opens a store in Times Square, another in a suburban town, and a third at the Jersey Shore, do they set the same sales goals for the three stores? Do they expect the same level of profit? Do they even charge the same price for a latte? No, because that would be absurd. Times Square is booming every day, all day, and people are willing to pay top dollar in New York; a suburban town might be slow and steady, with lower prices; a Shore town is seasonal, with slow business in winter and booming sales in summer. In other words, the customers have different habits, lifestyles, disposable income, and needs, and the business plan accommodates those differences.

So why do we expect schools to be any more uniform? Because, I hear you say, education is not coffee. We must not accept that poor kids, children of color, or urban kids routinely fail where affluent white kids in the suburbs succeed.

EXACTLY.

People don’t have to have coffee, but children have to have education. Education is a fundamentally different endeavor than business.

The business model that is being pushed on schools today is stupid and wrong-headed. It holds all kids to the same testing standard, despite the incontrovertible evidence that test results vary based on a variety of factors, some of them to be found inside school, but far more, outside school. So should we change to a more accurate business model like Starbucks, which accepts worse results in historically low-performing areas? Obviously not. No business model accounts for the reality of education--the striving for the best possible results for every kid, every time, despite very different circumstances and very complex human factors.

The fundamental problem is the business paradigm itself.  It is a model that will not do for education, because it assumes a whole range of things about education that are simply untrue or unacceptable: that kids’ circumstances outside of school do not influence them in school; that test scores are accurate reflections of achievement; that competition always produces the desired outcome; that opening and closing schools is as easy or advisable as opening and closing stores; that uniformity is not only possible, but good; that money is the best motivation for workers; and on and on.

Of course we must aspire to a world where all children succeed (not to mention a world where childhood poverty is eradicated). But we will never get there by reducing children to data points. Testing everyone using uniform standards is not even a smart business model, let alone an educational model. It doesn’t solve anything. It doesn’t even enlighten us as to the nature of the problem. It doesn’t show teachers how to teach better, or students how to reason, comprehend or create. And it certainly doesn’t address underlying issues of poverty that contribute so much to negative educational outcomes.

The plain fact is, no business model, no matter how distorted, works for education because education is a complex human system involving a web of interrelationships, not a thing that’s created and traded on a supply chain. Some aspects of education may indeed be measurable in limited ways, but to assume that you have a clear picture of the whole endeavor based on those measures is foolhardy in the extreme. Beyond that, education is something we as a society have deemed a right, not a commodity. Rights are non-negotiable, never to be bought and sold on the open market.

So why is this business-model data-driven reform so popular? Because there’s one thing in this whole picture that IS a measurable commodity subject to the laws of business and economics: the tests themselves. They are products bought and sold in the marketplace, and it’s a very lucrative business. It’s in the interest of the testing companies to convince the rest of us that the metrics we gain from their tests are meaningful. They’ve done a frighteningly good job.

Flogging the NJASK

With my daughter facing the start of the middle school NJASK, I made an amusing little animation about the ill effects of high-stakes standardized testing (using Xtranormal - I’m no animator). Well, I thought it was amusing, anyway. The point is, after I posted it, I got to wondering if other people had made similar videos.

So I went to YouTube and searched “NJASK.” What I found were dozens of videos, not criticizing the test, but designed to motivate students who are about to take it. Apparently, that is a thing schools do. Perhaps you know about the pep rallies many schools hold before the test. Many seem to just record the rally and put it on YouTube--I guess with the optimistic assumption that kids will want to relive the glory again and again. But many schools go further, creating special videos which, I assume, are shown at the pep rallies, in classrooms, etc.

 And these....boy. These videos just smack of fear and desperation -- fear that bad results will lead to sanctions, firings, closure, etc., and desperate willingness to try anything, no matter how embarrassing or misguided. Please understand: The schools and teachers involved have all my sympathy. They really, really do. But nothing demonstrates so forcefully just how pathologically test-obsessed our public schools have become, or explains so clearly why so many kids are getting very stressed out about something that should be so fleeting and insignificant in their lives.

 Here's the video I made:

 

And now, a selection of the various other NJASK videos I found. But first, a disclaimer. I understand that everyone involved in the making of these videos is just trying to do the right thing. There are no bad guys here, only bad situations and bad choices. In fact, many videos feature students, so I just want to say that I have no desire to mock kids who should actually be applauded for participating in what they are led to believe is a useful and positive project, and for showing pride in their schools. So kids, hooray for you and hooray for your schools. As for the teachers and administrators involved -- well, you have my sympathy, too. I know you mean well.

My favorite first. I'm giving this one the award for Most Bizarre and Disturbing, With Extra Gold Star for Mentioning Barfing:



This musical number gets two awards: Worst Overdub and Most Inexplicable Repetition of a Big Word Kids Don't Know (Metacognition):




The award for NJASK Motivational Video With Most 60s TV Clips (and Anti-NJASK Subtext) goes to:





Award for Most Realistic Portrayal of Test Prep Your Kids Suffer Through (also known as the Teaching to the Test Award) goes to this: a 45-minute video of a teacher modeling a persuasive essay about why kids should or shouldn't be allowed to chew gum in school. Really. And, no, I didn't watch the whole thing. But your kids have no choice.



This one gets the God Bless You for Trying, But Teachers, Your Kids Don't Even Know This Song award:



And last but not least, Most Gratuitous (and Boring) Use of Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi:



That's all for me, but if you find your own winners, feel free to post them in comments.

Beyonce is no Femen

This:

is not this:


The first picture is Beyonce in concert. The second picture is an activist group called Femen spraying water on Belgian Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard.

I raise this point because there seems to be some confusion on the subject of sexuality, female empowerment and slut shaming.

So there’s this open letter to Michelle Obama that’s been floating around the Internet lately. It reads, in part:

When you endorse a recording artist like Beyonce, I see the most misogynistic aspects of the music industry (that prefers girls to be no more complex than dolls) interpret your comments as a seal of approval for the thoughtless cultural currency that they flood the youth market with. I’m writing because I think it’s time to stop suggesting to very young girls that ultimate feminine success – in the music industry or anywhere else – comes with the need, or the expectation for them to undress.

Just to break that down for those who might need it broken down: The writer is saying that the music industry has a history of sexualizing female artists in order to make money and sends a message to young girls that their value lies in the sex appeal of their bodies.

The writer is not making this up. In case you haven’t figured it out for yourself just from living in America, some academic types did a helpful study that clarifies the issue:

In a longitudinal content analysis of images of women and men on more than four decades of Rolling Stone magazine covers (1967–2009)...we find that sexualized images of men and women have increased, though women continue to be more frequently sexualized than men. Yet our most striking finding is the change in how women—but not men—are sexualized. Women are increasingly likely to be “hypersexualized,” but men are not. These findings not only document changes in the sexualization of men and women in popular culture over time, they also point to a narrowing of the culturally acceptable ways for “doing” femininity as presented in popular media.

Breaking that down: The music industry uses a double standard in marketing artists; “sex sells” are the bywords for marketing women far more than men; not just the amount, but the degree of sexualization of female artists has become extreme; and this reflects the culture at large.

So when Beyonce very successfully and profitably sells herself with a hypersexualized image that would fit comfortably in most R&B/hip hop/pop marketing campaigns, she sits squarely inside the trend. She is participating in and profiting from that double standard. She’s not taking power back from a male-dominated industry, she’s helping them keep it.

Yet some commentators on the open letter to Michelle Obama accuse the author of “slut shaming” for suggesting that Beyonce’s choice of concert attire sets a bad example for girls. After all, it’s her body and she shouldn’t be ashamed of it! She’s just teaching girls to be empowered and love their bodies, right?

Umm....no. Really, really no. Beyonce is not challenging the double standard. She is not defying cultural norms of female beauty or feminine sexuality. She is not encouraging young people to think outside the box. She is not making a statement of empowerment. She is not boldly rebelling against the standards of the industry of which she is a pillar. She is reinforcing them. When people seek to challenge and redefine bad cultural norms, they don’t engage in them in the exact same way they’ve been implemented all along, for the exact same purpose, with the exact same results.

The term “slut shaming” is a term that CALLS OUT people who hold a double standard on sexual morality--who treat the same behavior in women and men very differently. For example, this piece from the Huffington Post, which asked people to send in their sex education horror stories, has a really excellent example of slut shaming:

We all got a sex-ed presentation in middle school. They kept the boys and girls together because the presentation wouldn't work without boys. They had two girls holding clear cups of clean water. They then gave several boys cups of water and had them swish it around in their mouths before spitting it into one girl's cup. This was supposed to represent what sex does to you, I guess. Turns you into a nasty grimy cup of spit water. Who would ever want you when there's a sparkling virgin right over there?

As a demonstration of the dangers of multiple sex partners, this approach leaves a lot to be desired. But the choice of having the boys spit in the girls’ cups? World-class slut shaming. It’s just as problematic for boys to have multiple sex partners, but the girls didn’t spit in the boys’ cups. Perhaps this is due to a lack of imagination on the part of the gym teacher regarding the imagery of the cup. Maybe s/he could have had the kids spit on a ring pop? But I digress. The lesson is clear: Girls who sleep around are dirty sluts and no one will want them. Just the girls. Not the boys. Double standard. Slut shaming.

You can't just trot out “slut shaming” to knock down every critic who points out the problematic use of female sexuality to sell product or pander to the male audience. It doesn't mean no one is allowed to criticize sexually exploitive material anymore--even when a female performer like Beyonce is a willing participant in the exploitation. Can a person be said to be exploited when she is a willing participant? When something exploits not just the individual, but an entire group--a gender, say, or a race--then yes, an individual can be a willing participant in the exploitation of the group of which she is a member. Maybe we should be far more forgiving of the individual than of the captains of her industry, but we don’t need to hold her up as a role model, either--especially not when so much change has already occurred, and so many other paths are being pioneered.

Which brings me to the second picture above.

Not everyone is going to go to the Femen extreme. There’s room for legitimate debate as to whether one should. But no one can doubt what Femen’s message is: female nudity as a colossal FUCK YOU to the patriarchy. Beyonce’s concert get-up? Not so much.

See the difference?

Wherein I take a red pen to the NJASK

My daughter recently brought home the information guide for the middle school NJASK (for the uninitiated, that’s the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge, the standardized test given in every public school in the state, upon which schools and now teachers’ jobs live and die). In previous years I never even glanced at the thing, but the state’s new plan to use test scores for teacher evaluation made me take a closer look.

While flipping through, I noticed that the sample reading piece was about Isaac Asimov, so of course I stopped to read it. Very quickly, the parent in me wanted to burn it. The writing teacher and editor in me wanted to take a red pen to it. I decided to let the more constructive personality win out.

It is one seriously crappy piece of writing. Granted, some of this is subjective. But while you can argue about individual criticisms, the weight of the evidence for crappiness is overwhelming. And, as my daughter pointed out, it’s being presented to kids as exemplary; something upon which they should model their own writing. That's just so very wrong.

 For those not interested in deciphering my red-pen chicken scratch, here are the highlights: bad grammar, typos, jargon, passive voice, awkward phrasing, juvenile tone, clichés, ambiguous wording, and worst of all, the most interesting question in the piece is never answered. As an extra bonus, I’m including two multiple choice questions which, with my Ivy League BA and MA in English lit, and my Ivy League MS in journalism, I cannot answer with any confidence.

Click on the images below to enlarge. If they're still too small to read, try following this link.

Adding: It seems I forgot to mention that the entire piece is dull as dishwater, if you'll pardon the cliché.  Would you want to run out and get your hands on some Asimov after reading this? No? But, I mean, ASIMOV!!!!!! THE BEST!!!!! Everyone knows superlatives and exclamation points add interest to any piece of writing.

On choosing private school

My family’s public school era is coming to a close.

My youngest will be starting high school next year, and not at our town’s public high school. She’ll be joining her two older brothers at one of those “elite private schools” one reads about. You know, the places where so many politicians, wealthy philanthropists and assorted academics choose to send their kids, the implication being that those who are most vocal about what public education should be rarely choose it for their own children.

Others have already written about the difference between choosing private school precisely because it provides the education you think all children should get, and choosing private school while advocating something very different for other people’s children in public school.  Nevertheless,  there’s a certain amount of guilt that comes along with this decision. If my kids leave the public education system, don’t I lose credibility as an authentic parental voice on public education? Does my ability to afford an alternative education make me more of a dilettante than an advocate? Am I just a coward who’s fleeing instead of fighting?

I suppose those doubts will be my cross to bear. I do truly and deeply believe that the high school my kids will attend adheres to an educational philosophy that would benefit all children, and that it is possible to implement it in the public education environment. I also know that my kids only get one chance at high school. The way things are going in New Jersey, these next few years are going to see far too many negative changes in public education that would have a terrible impact directly on my kids, like more high-stakes testing; the loss of great, experienced teachers due to the insane pressures of test-based evaluation and other state mandates; and more time spent on things that make the school look good in the data game as opposed to things that actually educate kids.

Anyway, as I said before, others have gone into all that in great detail, with greater expertise than I have.

Instead, as my family embarks on this new chapter, I’d like to offer two lists: The five main things we hope our kids will get in the high school we chose, and the five main things we’ll regret leaving behind in the public school system.

WHAT WE HOPE OUR KIDS WILL GET IN PRIVATE SCHOOL

1. A rich, diverse curriculum with a good balance between learning information and learning critical thinking, communication and reasoning skills that make information meaningful.
2. Small class sizes and plenty of opportunities for kids to work closely with teachers.
3. A school that devotes significant effort to promoting a sense of community and teaches the responsibilities and benefits of being members of that community.
4. Goals set high, with every individual encouraged to aim for excellence and not settle for mediocre proficiency.
5. The opportunity to try new things and get out of one’s comfort zone without being discouraged, labeled, or bullied.

WHAT WE REGRET OUR KIDS WILL LEAVE BEHIND IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

1. A truly diverse student body, and all the deep understanding of our community and our world that comes from broad human contact. Private schools try, but there is no substitute for the true cross section of humanity that walks through the doors of a public school every single day.
2. Music. This seems counterintuitive, with everyone lamenting cuts to the arts in public education. Who knows? Our district could very well suffer the same fate in the coming years. But up until now, we’ve been privileged to be part of a district with an excellent music program, and our kids have benefited enormously from it. A large school with many kids can offer so much in the music department: marching band, jazz band, orchestra, choir, etc. A smaller school simply doesn’t have the deep well of talented kids to draw on. Yes, their new school has a music program, but it lacks the depth of the public school offerings.
3. Some of the most inspiring teachers you’ll meet anywhere. Sure, we’ve encountered plenty of mediocre teachers in public school, but some amazing gems as well - highly experienced educators who draw great achievements from their students. What I’m about to say is conjecture on my part; maybe I’m overgeneralizing. But it seems to me that, because public school has traditionally provided a high degree of job security, benefits, etc., a person who wants to dedicate him/herself to a career in education - who has a fire in the belly for teaching and wants to remain in the classroom - has been likely to make that career in the public school system. Unlike what the anti-union crowd would have us believe, tenure and strong union contracts can enhance the quality of education by making teaching a viable career choice for the long haul.
4. A school community that is also a geographic community. Kids benefit when the people they live among are also the people they learn with.
5. The fundamental sense of being part of the social contract; kids knowing that everyone in their community is chipping in to educate them because they are valued members of society, and that we are all obliged to serve each other as citizens of a democracy.

Sigh. Nothing is simple.

On law-abiding gun owners

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about the rights of “law-abiding gun owners,” and how we have nothing to fear from them.

In the early 90s, my parents, New York academics who’d taught for decades in the CUNY system, moved to Houston, Texas. They stayed for a decade. It was a great professional opportunity; my mother was given an endowed chair at Rice University while my father taught at the University of Houston. They bought a house near the Rice campus. They were very much fish out of water in this new environment, like characters from a Woody  Allen movie transplanted to the cast of Dallas. I like to tell this story to illustrate: When their house was reassessed and their property taxes went up, my German-Jewish father went into the assessor’s office to appeal.  The gentleman handed my dad a big book and told him to “look up y’all’s house.” My father thought this was an odd request but flipped to the Y’s, figuring maybe Mr. Yall’s house was similar to his.

Here's another story my father told me about Houston.

My parents lived next door to a young family with whom they got along well. They were good neighbors - friendly and unintrusive, just the way one wants one’s neighbors to be. They had an adorable kid.

One day my father was heading across his driveway to his little office above the garage when he noticed a parked car blocking his neighbor’s driveway. Apparently, that same car had been there before. His neighbor, the man of the house, came outside and asked my father if he’d seen who parked the car. My father said no. The neighbor turned around, walked back inside, came out a moment later carrying a rifle, and headed up the driveway.

Needless to say, my father hightailed it to his office and hoped for a quiet afternoon. That was the last he heard of the incident.

I have no idea what my parents’ neighbor did. I don’t think he intended to shoot anyone. But clearly, in his mind, it was legitimate to use his gun to intimidate someone for the high crime of driveway-blocking.

No doubt there are gun advocates who will insist that this story is not representative of gun culture. But when I’ve told this story to Texans, their usual response is amusement at my indignation - like, “Yeah, and water is wet.” Like I am charmingly parochial and a little bit simple for thinking this story so remarkable.

Guns are just tools, we're told. Yes, they are. As the saying goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all you have is a gun...

See, the thing about this whole “law-abiding gun owner” argument is that every gun owner is law-abiding. Until they’re not.