Pushing back--hard--against the manufactured "crisis" of "failing" schools, "bad" teachers, and "under-achieving" students, one day at a time. . .

The one about Opting Out, Positive Responses and Tipping Points

We recently received an email from our school district about M-STEP (Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress) Testing dates--for those not in Michigan, this is the new "required" state test for children in grades 3-8 which replaces the MEAP.

For one of our boys, the M-STEP testing schedule was to span 6 different days and include tests on English Language and Mathematics. The thought of our son missing class time for 6 days to sit for standardized tests--the results of which couldn't possibly inform his learning or his teachers' instructional practices, due to the tests being administered in the Spring rather than in the Fall, with the results not being made available until after the close of the school year--was bad enough. But to make matters worse, this "summative" test was not intended to be a long-term solution to the state's testing policies: 

“Our challenge is that this is a one-year interim assessment. I’m not sure how meaningful that will be for us because we can’t compare results,” Grandville Public Schools Superintendent Ron Caniff said about the M-STEP. “This will be a snapshot of how our students measure up to other students (nationwide), but we won’t be able to measure it in terms of how our students are learning and growing – that’s the downside.” (

The bottom line was that our child was being pulled out of classes for 6 days, for tests that weren't intended to really measure student learning or growth, or to provide any meaningful feedback for his teachers, and these tests were not likely to be given again in subsequent years. The whole thing seemed like a terrible, awful, really bad idea--but the kicker was the following tag line on the district's email announcement:

"PLEASE DO NOT MAKE APPOINTMENTS FOR YOUR CHILD ON THE DATES ATTACHED. If your child misses these dates, then they will do make up testing and will be pulled from other academic classes. If your child is ill, they should stay home, of course! We understand!"

Before going on, I want to be clear: My wife and I believe that the school district that our children attend is terrific. They have wonderful teachers, a fantastic school music program, excellent academics, and a wide array of student services. The student body is diverse and motivated, and the community is fully engaged in school activities and governance. Our interactions with school personnel have always been great, and we have never regretted our decision to purchase a home in this town--a decision we made based largely on the quality of the school system.

So, the district's message didn't appear to ring true. In private conversations with teachers and administrators within the school system, I had sensed their agreement with our thinking about the explosion of standardized testing and its negative impact on teacher evaluation, school funding, and a host of other issues. These were intelligent, thoughtful, caring persons. Each of them had treated my children as their own--with sensitivity, compassion and care. I was certain that they had the children's learning as their highest priority, but felt compelled to follow the state's (misguided) directives regarding these tests.

After a great deal of thought, we decided to contact the school to tell them we were opting our son out of the M-STEP tests, and asked about the provisions for students who will not be taking these exams. After hitting "send" I was apprehensive--I knew about the pressures the folks at the school were under, and also didn't want to put my son in an awkward position with his friends and teachers at school. Both my wife and I are teachers, and have always approached our "job" as parents of school-aged children with the goal of supporting our kids' teachers fully. Making this request was not an easy decision for either of us.

Two days later we received the following response:

"I contacted the Assistant Superintendent and she told me that we would honor your request for opting (your son) out of testing with a note from you.  (Your son) is already on the testing rosters, but with your note, we will remove him.  

Students are being tested during their academic hours with their homeroom teachers. Per Assistant Superintendent, (your son) will be offered this time to work on any homework he has or to read a book for the time that his peers are testing. He may be given the option of going to the library...

We are required to have 95% participation for testing and any student opting out is a hit on that percentage. However, we understand your request and will honor it with a note sent to the Guidance Office."

Having read and heard about much more hostile responses from schools around the country to similar requests, we were both relieved and encouraged by our school's reply. Not only was our request for our child to opt out greeted with respect, but provisions for our son's attendance on those days when the test was scheduled were provided without argument or hassle. The approach was understanding, positive and student-centered--everything we have come to expect from our school district.

I also believe that this response is an indication of a tipping point of sorts when it comes to the issue of opting out and school testing. More and more, teachers and administrators are understanding the negative impact of these tests on students, teachers and schools, and are joining the fight with parents and other groups advocating for a reduction in the number and uses of these tests.

At the end of the day, I am left feeling optimistic and enormously encouraged by this interaction, and energized to continue the fight against the corporate reformers' obsession with data-mining and high-stakes testing. I can sense the tide turning, and more teachers and school administrators joining in the push back against these reforms. We have reached a Tipping Point, and now is the time to redouble our efforts.


The one about Teach for America, their recruits, and motivations...

Teach for America "Scenarios"

Scenario 1--the college student wants to be a teacher but goes to a school with no ed degree program, so signs up with TFA: bad decision making.

Scenario 2--the student is not interested in being a teacher, graduates with a degree in another discipline, but decides to do TFA for a couple of years before going back to grad school or entering the work force: in so doing, the student may force an experienced teacher out of the classroom, as happened to hundreds of teachers in Chicago over the last couple of years, especially veteran teachers of color in the city (; and, the hiring districts pay a premium of $3000-5000 per TFA recruit on top of paying the new teachers' salaries--creating negative financial consequences for the school and community, not to mention the costs (financial, human resources, etc.) associated with excessive teacher turnover, which is a feature of the TFA business model (;

Scenario 3: the student has a sincere interest in social justice and societal change, and believes that working as a TFA recruit will help them achieve those goals: the recruit's goals are not aligned with the organization's goals, creating tensions that lead to non-productive disruption among the teaching force and in the schools (see: Gary Rubenstein's work, among others).

Scenario 4: the student enters the classroom through TFA, teaches for 2 years, then gets a job in a state education department, or in school administration, or with a policy think tank: this is TFA's real agenda (;;, and we can see how this is working out for us as a profession--our policy agenda is being dictated and guided by persons who have no education degrees, never interned or student taught, and don't have sustained, successful teaching experience in "regular" public schools.

None of these scenarios is good, most of them are really bad, and the proof is right in front of our eyes in the form of destabilized schools and communities, the explosion of for-profit charters, and continued attacks on K-12 and higher education.


The one about TV ads, the Lansing School District, and misleading claims...

Recently, the Lansing School District released a series of TV and radio ads designed to promote their schools ( Amid a floating stream of expertly produced and edited video of young children bouncing basketballs and playing music instruments, the voiceover claims that the Lansing Schools "offer more educational choices to students than any other school district in the greater Lansing region." This, in spite of the fact that the District decided to slash the offerings for those very children by eliminating all of the 27 elementary art, music and PE positions in the Lansing schools over a year ago, leaving the city's students with only 2 music, art and PE classes per semester, while their peers in neighboring school systems often receive these classes twice per week.

Now, if the superintendent, board of education and teachers union in Lansing had just gotten together and cut the elementary art, music and PE programs and teachers in the schools, that would have been one thing...

  • But to hear the former AMPE program now be referred to as the "Innovative Arts & Fitness" Department, as though there is anything "innovative" in firing 27 teachers and depriving thousands of children of a full and complete education...

  • To read press releases and interviews with district officials touting the current art and music offerings as being better than what was previously in place, because of the presence of "real artists and musicians" in Lansing's schools...

  • To see that the LSD held a promotional fair at the Lansing Center this past weekend, with radio and media coverage, in an effort to stem the tide of those leaving the District, largely due to the curricular narrowing and impoverished offerings now available at the elementary level...

  • And now, for the art and music teachers in Lansing who had their careers taken away to be subjected to thousands of dollars worth of TV and radio ads promoting the "rich and diverse curricular offerings" in the Lansing School District, even as the elementary curriculum has been gutted of art, music and PE, and to know that their former students are only receiving instruction in these subjects 4 TIMES PER YEAR...

Let me be clear: I believe that there are many excellent teachers in the Lansing schools, including several outstanding music teachers working in the District's high schools. I've been blown away by what the music students and faculty are doing in Lansing, especially given the difficult conditions under which they are working. These students and teachers deserve nothing but our support, encouragement and respect.

But cuts to music and art programs in any school system are unacceptable ways to manage school finances, and are disproportionately devastating to children in urban communities, whose families may not have the resources to provide them with alternative forms of instruction in the arts. School district leaders are charged with providing the students in their care with a full and comprehensive education, which includes the arts. Eliminating these offerings, at any level, is an abrogation of their duty, and merits a strong and forceful response.

The children in Lansing deserve strong, quality arts programs, delivered by qualified, certified music and art teachers. What is currently being offered as "Innovative" is unacceptable, and the District needs to restore the teaching positions they have eliminated so that Lansing's students get the education that they deserve.


The one about BRIGHT Ohio, Teach for America and CEOs...

The state of Ohio recently announced a newly re-branded initiative to attract, recruit and train new superintendents for the state's schools ( Interestingly--or horrifyingly, depending on your point of view--the BRIGHT initiative is based on the "executive MBA" model, and is designed to bring recent college graduates in degree programs other than education into school leadership positions in Ohio's schools. These eager new recruits would be admitted not to an administrative degree program, but to the MBA degree at Ohio State University, "fully paid for by BRIGHT", while being placed in a one year internship in an Ohio school, under the supervision of a "master principal." At the conclusion of the training program, each candidate will complete their "responsibilities as a BRIGHT leader..." by serving "at least two years as the principal of any public school in Ohio."

Now, some people might understandably have a few questions after hearing about the BRIGHT initiative. Like:

  • Why would we want school principals who have never taught?
  • Why are we designing new school leadership programs when there is no shortage of school administrators?
  • Why would an MBA be the best degree for a school principal or superintendent, and not a degree in education, or educational administration, or school leadership?
  • Why are persons with no teaching experience being placed as administrative interns when teachers who are working on their administrative credentials need these placements?
  • Why design a new school leadership training program that only requires its graduates to serve as principals for 2 years?
  • What Ohio school districts would actually hire these people?

Given that the BRIGHT program is clearly designed as a business model, I wondered how it compared to the way that business leaders are prepared. So, just out of curiosity, I looked into the typical career paths for CEOs--and this is what I found...

"Although some individuals are born leaders, most are made. Becoming a chief executive typically takes years of hard work. Extensive experience in the company's field is desirable and some companies tend to prefer those with degrees from upper-tier schools in business, economics or finance. Finally, those that have worked their way up from a low level within the organization may have an advantage, as they arguably know the company better than any outsider ever could."

If we transfer these characteristics to education, we might surmise that superintendents should have extensive experience in education with significant time in the classroom as a teacher, a degree in education and perhaps additional degrees in one's subject matter area, and should have worked their way up in the school system so that they know and understand the communities in which they work. But the folks at BRIGHT don't seem concerned with following ethical business principles when it comes to their true agenda--destabilizing schools by providing a rotating cast of short term leaders with no background or experience in education.

Now, why would the folks behind BRIGHT ignore the "best practices" from the business world, when they are basing their program on business models? As always, when you are confused about the premises of a new education reform idea, follow the money. And in this case, that means finding out who is paying for this program. The answers can be found under the "Partners" tab on the BRIGHT website:

"BRIGHT is proud to be working closely with the Ohio Department of Education, Ohio Board of Regents, and Adjutant General of Ohio, as well as Ohio's three largest school districts – Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. National partners include New Leaders, Teach for America and the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. Jones Day provides comprehensive legal services on a pro bono basis."

And now the circle is squared. The BRIGHT program neatly fills in the niche between "Teach for America" (producing unqualified recruits for classrooms) and the Broad Superintendent's Academy (producing unqualified superintendents) by producing unqualified principals for Ohio's schools.


The one about schools, Pearson and monopolies...

Lately we've been hearing increasingly hysterical claims from "think tanks" (, pundits ( and even presidential candidates about how our public schools are “government -run, unionized, politicized monopolies’ that ‘trap good teachers, administrators and struggling students in a system that nobody can escape'" (( Sounds like scary stuff.

But before we call in the National Guard, let's be clear about one thing: anyone who thinks that our public schools are well organized enough to pull off a monopoly has never spent any significant time inside of a public school. Its not uncommon for the teachers who work in an elementary school to be unaware of what's happening in the middle school in their district, or for the math teachers in a high school to have any idea of what's happening down the hallway in the social studies department--let alone communicate well enough to organize a national education monopoly with consistent rules, regulations and standards.

Years ago when the then-new National Standards in Music had been out for a couple of years, I visited a middle school where we had placed a student teacher. The cooperating teacher was a wonderful musician and teacher, and happened to be a good friend of mine as well. I watched the co-op and his student teacher team-teach a terrific band rehearsal, full of inspirational teaching, artistic conducting and impressive creativity on the part of the students.

As the 3 of us were walking back to his office to debrief, I asked my friend a question: "How is your teaching different now because of the National Standards?" He turned and looked at me with a quizzical look on his face, and responded simply, "What National Standards?" Monopoly? I don't think so.

The simple truth is that public schools are a hot mess. We are disorganized, don't communicate particularly well, and do a terrible job of letting the public know what we do. That's mostly because the public schools are also incredibly active, vital and busy places, full of noise, excitement and creativity, where the adults are less concerned with issuing press releases and conducting feasibility studies than they are in working on projects, rehearsing plays, and helping children become happy, expressive, sensitive and curious human beings.

Now, if Mr. Friedman, the Cato Institute and Gov. Bush really want to see an educational monopoly in action, they need look no further than the multi-national testing conglomerate, Pearson, Inc. 

Pearson, with headquarters in Great Britain, owns the publishing companies Scott Foresman, Penguin, Harcourt and Prentice Hall, setting text book prices, controlling content, and "franchising" the curriculum in thousands of K-12 schools and colleges across the country. Not content with merely controlling textbooks, Pearson also has their tentacles into familiar companies like Adobe, Longman, Wharton, Puffin and Allyn & Bacon, which allows them to exert an outsized influence on the size and scope of the educational enterprise in the US and abroad. Pearson's support for the Common Core State Standards, with generous support from "philanthropic" foundations like the Gates Foundation, practically assures that the tests that they produce will be closely "aligned" with the CCSS, all but guaranteeing that states will enter into agreements with Pearson to be the sole test provider for thousands of students each year. In New York State alone, Pearson's contracts total more than $32 million over the next 5 years.

But it doesn't stop there: Pearson also has the contract to produce, administer and score the edTPA, a new test for student teachers. And the company is the provider of standardized tests such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Stanford Achievement Test, the Millar Analogy Test, and the G.E.D. Pearson also owns some of the most popular and powerful student data management systems available for schools, like PowerSchool and SASI (

Pearson is well on their way to controlling virtually every aspect of American education, from preschool materials (, to professional development for teachers (, to online and virtual learning products and services (

If Mr. Friedman, Gov. Bush and friends are *really* concerned with monopolies, I suggest that they focus their gaze on Pearson, and leave the schools alone so our teachers can teach, and our children can learn.


The One about Charter Schools, Eye Doctors and Bank Fraud, Oh My!

Charter school proponents claim that charters offer options for parents who are disappointed in what their public schools provide, and this "choice" is about giving children better options. A recent story in the Detroit Free Press ( spins a "soap opera" style tale of nepotism, cronyism, crazy ideas about how children learn, bank fraud, and embezzlement. Michigan's charter school "industry"--and that's what it is, an industry; not an educational system, but rather a business model designed to steal public money and slip it into private bank accounts--is wildly out of control, an unregulated Wild West playground for unscrupulous hucksters, quacks and charlatans who see our school system and our children as an untapped well-spring of profits. And the stream is flowing.


Let's be clear: the charter school "industry" is not about kids, learning or "choice." This unregulated explosion of charters is about money, and lots of it. This eye doctor funneled millions of taxpayer dollars into his private bank account. This was essentially a money laundering operation, not substantially different from how drug dealers set up a legitimate business, run it at a loss in order to turn "dirty" money into "clean" money, and then walk away when the heat gets too hot. [See: Breaking Bad.]

What's lost here is any discussion of Dr. Ingersoll's "innovative" approach to learning, "Integrated Visual Learning," which has to do with rapid eye movements. Here's a teacher's account of IVL, and how it was used in Dr. Ingersoll's school:

"His claims were/are at best a novelty in my opinion. If I recall correctly, students were initially given a screener to see how their eyes tracked on a page of text. This was done with a special machine and a pair of glasses hooked up to the machine. If their eyes didn’t track from left to right (as in how a person reads a page of text) and from one line to the next in the correct “zig zag” pattern during reading, then they were considered to need “therapy.” Therapy was expensive and rarely covered by insurance."

What's missing here is any description of how children learn. How does this "test" help teachers adapt instruction? What happens when a child's eyes don't zig zag? Are they taught differently, or just not admitted to the school?

Um, not so much...according to another teacher:

"There was NO room in the school specifically for IVL testing. There may have been equipment, but kids were never observed for vision. The IVL methods were taught to all kids, because Ingersoll made the staff do it; middle school and high school as well. Even the Special Education teachers had to teach it. which meant critical standards were not met."

So while we don't know if Dr. Ingersoll knows anything about children, or learning, or schools, here's what we do know:

1. He stole our money.

2. He subjected our children to radical, untested teaching methods.

3. People like this should not be permitted to set foot in our schools, much less run them.


The one about "fixing" Detroit's schools...

A recent article on the Michigan Radio web page describes Gov Snyder's plans "to 'fix' Detroit’s education problems once and for all" (

Aside from the fact that many of these "problems" were created in large part due to the Governor's mismanagement of education in the state, and specifically in Detroit, and because of the systematic starving of resources for the state's schools, the ideas included in this article were also deeply offensive to anyone who lives in, works in or cares about Detroit and the DPS.

1. Detroit's schools don't need to be "fixed." They need to be cared for. And they need to be cared for by those that care about them the most, and for the right reasons--the parents, students, teachers and citizens of Detroit. Expecting the same folks who wanted to sell the art off the walls of the Detroit Museum of Art to "fix" the DPS is like expecting a burglar to lock the doors after he cleans out your house. If you really want to help Detroit's schools, then return control of those schools to the elected school board, administration and teachers in Detroit and get rid of the

2. Hiring the architect of New Orleans' "Recovery School District" to fix DPS is like hiring the CEO of BP to clean up an oil spill. As Professors Miron and Pedroni point out in the article, the "experiment" in New Orleans has not worked, and is not likely to work in Detroit either. It was based on faulty premises, was untested and never vetted properly. Perhaps most alarmingly, it was truly an "experiment"--an experiment conducted on the children and families of New Orleans, without their knowledge or approval. The full extent of the damage created by this experiment won't be known for years, but we do know it has been spectacularly unsuccessful, and certainly is not worth bringing to Detroit.

3. You don’t “scale up” schools based on design templates. That’s a business practice, not an educational practice—and schools are not businesses. Schools are unique, organic and different, depending on where they are, who attends them, and who works in them. Just as a house in Alaska may serve some of the same functions as a house in Hawaii, they don't look the same, aren't built the same, and would be ineffective and inefficient if transported from one place to the other. You “scale up” a fast food franchise. You don’t “scale up” schools.

So, I'd like to offer some unsolicited advice for Gov. Snyder: as a businessman, you know that one of the first rules of crisis management is that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Your policies have led to a manufactured crisis in Detroit, and your solution appears to be looking at one of the few cities in the country whose schools are in worse shape than Detroit's and bringing the former superintendent from New Orleans to Detroit. You are fortunate to lead a state with some of the nation's finest teacher education programs, and yet ignore the advice from the experts in those programs. Drs. Pedroni and Miron have been unusually blunt and frank with their advice on your plan--you would do well to listen to their ideas and suggestions.

You are, after all, paying them for their expertise.


The one about debates, issues and dangerous decisions...

Recently, we have seen an inexplicable explosion of head-scratching, chin-stroking stories on *alleged* issues, such as whether or not parents should have their children vaccinated, whether evolution is a "thing" or not, and supposedly serious discussions by elected officials about whether or not global climate change is real. [Spoiler Alert: Yes, yes, and yes.]


This rampant streak of what can only be seen as "anti-intellectualism" ( isn't simply unsettling; the science on each of these "issues" is settled. Vaccines DO NOT cause autism; the Earth is not 6000 years "young"; and climate scientists have determined without a shadow of a doubt that the planet is warming at an alarming rate, with dire consequences. Its dangerous.


  • Children are getting sick and dying because our "herd immunity" is waning due to well-meaning but uninformed parents making the dangerous decision not to immunize their kids.
  • "Young Earthers" are damaging their children's learning and understandings of the world by teaching them fables in place of science.
  • Climate change deniers are now in charge of senate science committees, where their ignorance isn't just shocking; it threatens our very existence.

To this list I would add a 4th dangerous decision that poses a threat to our children and our communities: the reckless and irresponsible decisions we see in too many school systems to eliminate music, art and physical education instruction from the curriculum.


In Lansing, MI, the decision to eliminate 47 elementary art, music and PE teachers was cast as a "tough, but responsible decision," and the local media praised the superintendent and school board for their "courage" in making this decision.

Let's be clear: This was not a "tough" decision. It was a bad, and dangerous decision. What's "tough" is being a 2nd grader who loves to draw and going to school without the possibility of art class being the bright spot of your day. What's "tough" is being a 5th grade kid who loves to play the trumpet, and knowing that your school doesn't think that music is important enough to offer as a class. What's "tough" is being in Kindergarten and seeing your cousin in the suburbs learn how to paint, and sing, and dance, while your school day is full of "test prep" and "extra math."

It was a decision that denies thousands of children, many living in crushing poverty, an education that includes making music, making art, and learning how to be physically fit and healthy for a lifetime. We have known that music and the arts were an important component of a child's education in this country since the public schools began. And while parents in more affluent communities may be able to provide their children with private music and art lessons, or pay for them to join a travel soccer or basketball team outside of school, many of the families in Lansing and other urban areas do not have the resources to afford these opportunities--they depend on the public schools to make sure their children have access to the richness of a full and complete education, one that includes music and art.


School leaders are charged with making sure that the children in their schools are provided with the very best education possible--an education that includes ALL of the disciplines and subjects that are a part of a comprehensive, sequential curriculum. And that includes the arts, foreign language, libraries, special education services, and a host of other offerings. These things are not "specials" or "extras"; their absence can't be disguised by referring to them with clever names like "Encore!" or "Innovative Arts and Fitness". There is nothing "innovative" about firing 47 teachers and denying children a full and rich education, especially when its your job to ensure that they get just that.


The inclusion of music and art in the curriculum is not an "issue"--just as with vaccination, or evolution, we *know* the truth. And the truth is that all children deserve to learn about music and art in the public schools. There are not "2 sides" to this question. No parent would willingly choose an education barren of these disciplines--and no school should either.


The One in Which I Throw My Hat in the Ring. . .

After a great deal of consideration, I have decided to apply for the position of State Superintendent of Instruction for the state of Michigan. It's time to stop complaining, and time to take action.

I have no illusions that my candidacy will be successful, but would welcome the opportunity to ask some serious questions about the policies guiding education in the state.

We need a person in this office who will be a strong supporter of teachers and students, understands the damage that over-testing has had on the schools, and will work to stop the attacks on teachers and public schools.

We need to halt the proliferation of charter schools, abolish the EAA in Detroit and the rest of the state, and address the funding problems that have hampered public education in Michigan.

We need to insure that every child in the state receives a full, rich and diverse educational experience that includes music, art, PE, foreign language, social studies, science, and library services, in addition to the "tested subjects."

And we need to make sure that teachers are evaluated fairly and appropriately, not by Value Added Measures, student test scores or other invalid and unreliable "metrics."

Please let me know what educational issues you believe are important in the comments below.


The one in which Teach for America reveals their true colors. . .

Perhaps the strongest voice defending public school teachers against the agenda of the corporate reformers is education historian, Diane Ravitch. Dr. Ravitch recently posted a story ( about Teach for America's public support of the Federal Department of Education's newly proposed regulations on teacher education programs. This is notable for a couple of reasons. One, TFA is--allegedly--a non-profit organization devoted to the preparation of alternatively certified teachers for America's urban schools. And two, TFA is clearly in competition with said teacher education programs, making their public stance on these regulations a fairly obvious conflict of interest.

Now, my own feelings about Teach for America are hardly a secret (, but even I was a bit surprised that TFA would tip their hand on their real agenda: destroying traditional teacher education programs, teachers unions, and public schools as we know them.

I guess we should be grateful that TFA was so transparent about their true colors--it makes them much easier to identify as part and parcel of the corporate reform movement, and makes it much harder for them to continue pretending they are an educational organization at all.


The one about "throwing money" at problems...

I often read stories that quote politicians and ed reform officials who claim that spending money won't help solve the problems facing students, schools and teachers nowadays. Their premise is wrong on several accounts; one, these persons are usually the ones who have created the problems we are all now dealing with, and two, in my experience throwing money at problems usually works pretty well. 

Recently, Sen. Phil Pavlov, the chair of the Michigan Senate Education Committee, trotted out this under-thought, knee-jerk response to school funding in our state, saying:  "What's clear in all of this is that simply spending money is not the answer. According to statewide school report cards available on the Michigan Department of Education website, some of the state's highest-funded school districts have multiple schools on the 2012 achievement gap list, despite receiving over $9,000, $10,000 or even $11,000 per pupil." (

What Sen. Pavlov fails to mention is that gaining a spot on the state's "achievement gap list" is no measure of any sort of educational or learning issue--its simply an indication that a school's students have not met a predetermined goal, set by the state (not teachers), with respect to standardized test scores in math or reading. In some schools, this may mean that only 97% of the school's students achieved a passing score on an exam, and the state had set a goal of 98%. Really. Both of my children's schools were placed on one of these state lists a few years ago for not achieving "adequate yearly progress," even though they were two of the highest scoring schools in the state on all measures of student learning. So, Sen. Pavlov's measuring tool isn't measuring what he thinks it is, lots of students and teachers are being punished for excelling at what they do, and lots of time and effort is being wasted on things that just don't matter.


Sen. Pavlov's response also ignores the fact that Gov. Snyder, with Pavlov's help, has cut school funding by $2 billion dollars during his time as governor. So suggesting that giving more money to schools won't do any good is a particularly cruel and hurtful approach given the systematic starving of resources and draconian reforms that have been enacted by Pavlov, Snyder and the legislature in recent years.

What I find especially ironic is the fact that the same politicians who claim to believe that "throwing money" at our children's futures is a waste of resources saw no problems with "Citizens United," which eliminated all restrictions on financial contributions to election campaigns. If throwing money at students, teachers and schools won't help education, then how does it help their campaigns?


So, Sen. Pavlov, you may be right that throwing money at the schools won't solve the problems that you helped to create, but your other solutions--expanded school choice, more charter schools with less regulations, invalid and unreliable teacher evaluation systems, increased student testing requirements, destroying our state's teacher unions, etc.--haven't worked so far, so let's try adequately funding our schools and see what happens. Its worth a shot, right?


Everything's up-to-date in Illinois!

I just returned from a wonderful time in Peoria where I shared two presentations with the music teachers and music teacher educators at the Illinois Music Educators Association Conference. One session was on strategies for designing partnerships between schools and colleges, and the other  was a talk on the (mis)uses of data in music teacher evaluation. PDFs of both sessions are available for download on the "Clinic and Workshop Materials" page on this site.

I head to Arizona in a few weeks for the Desert Skies Research Symposium to present a keynote address on music teacher evaluation and music education research, and then on to Miami the following week to visit with the music ed students and faculty at Florida International University on Friday, Feb. 27, and talk to the Miami-Dade County music teachers about assessment strategies on Sat., Feb. 28.


But the best part of my visit to Illinois was spending time with former Spartans, Bridget Sweet and Adam Kruse, now members of the music ed faculty at the University of Illinois, along with Janet Barrett and Louis Bergonzi; my "old" friend, Glenn Williams, from Downers Grove; Maud Hickey and Steve Demorest from Northwestern; Rich Cangro from Western Illinois; Scott Edgar from Lake Forest College; and many new friends as well.


What Every Principal Needs to Know to Create Equitable and Excellent Schools

It's out! Teachers College Press has released our new book, What Every Principal Needs to Know to Create Equitable and Excellent Schools, edited by George Theoharis and Jeff Brooks.


My chapter is titled, "Music Teaching and Learning in a Time of Reform"--here's a brief excerpt:


Music in the public school curriculum is at a precarious point. Indeed, one author has described the place of school music as teetering at a veritable “tipping point.” Borrowing from Malcolm Gladwell’s book of the same name, Kratus (2007) identifies the need for “sticky” ideas in music education that will attract new students and new audiences, lest we see the divide between music and “school music” grow even wider and deeper. A 2006 survey by the Center on Education Policy, an independent education policy think tank, found that since the passage of NCLB in 2001, 71% of the nation's 15,000 school districts had reduced the hours of instructional time spent on history, music and other subjects to open up more time for reading and math (Dillon, 2006).

This narrowing of the public school curriculum has been accompanied by an increased emphasis on standardized testing, especially in the subject areas of math and reading, in a back-to-basics movement that has threatened to alter the very fabric of American public education. 


For more information, click on the picture of the book cover to go to the Teachers College Press web page about the book.



Teaching music in a time of reform. . .

Music education, both in the public schools and in higher education, is at a precarious point. A 2006 survey by the Center on Education Policy, an independent education policy think tank, found that since the passage of NCLB in 2001, 71 percent of the nation’s 15,000 school districts had reduced the hours of instructional time spent on history, music and other subjects to open up more time for reading and math. This narrowing of the public school curriculum has been accompanied by an increased emphasis on standardized testing, especially in the subject areas of math and reading, in a back to basics movement that has threatened to alter the very fabric of American public education.


Never before in my teaching career can I think of a time when what we had to offer as music teachers and music teacher educators was more desperately needed, by our students, our schools and our society. I often tell my students that the job we are preparing them for as teachers is an amazing one—it allows them to make decisions, solve problems, make interpretive choices, and be responsible for making a glorious whole out of disparate, disconnected pieces. It seems to me that our goal as music teachers is to make sure that the students in our ensembles and classes also view their ‘jobs’ in the same way—that they feel creative, empowered, and independent. It is both our privilege and our challenge to be music teacher educators during an exciting and volatile time in our profession’s history, and it is the role of our professional organizations to provide the leadership and guidance necessary to support all of us as we move into the future.