Oscar Fuentes won't be in class today.   Who will notice?

One more child is dead in D.C., gunned down through the door of his own home.   Who is paying attention?   The Redskins won, so all's right with the world, right?  Not.

Interestingly, only 10 comments have appeared so far on the Washington Post story about the Saturday night murder of Oscar Fuentes in his apartment at 1400 Columbia Road, an address many of us pass by frequently on our way to trendy restaurants in Adams Morgan or shopping in the new hip urban corner just a block away.   Stunningly, but not surprising, three of the ten comments blame the family for living at this address, and blame the neighborhood for failing to report the thugs.   One of the comments goes so far as to call for the removal of public housing in the Columbia Heights neighborhood so that "finally we'll have a community on par with Takoma Park…"  Shameful.

Where is the outrage when a child is murdered?  Mention Dan Snyder in this town and the airwaves crackle with rage.   Raise the subject of health care reform and people take to the streets.   Suggest that there's a legitimate religious interest in limiting the same-sex marriage bill and the crowd mounting the ramparts is huge.

Where are the legions marching for Oscar Fuentes and all of the children gunned down in street violence in the capital of the most powerful nation on earth?

Oh, sure, the public officials and media show up, and the teddy bears pile up in the kind of sad streetside memorial that appears too often on our local streets.    All too soon, the klieg lights dim, the politicos move on, and the memorials melt into tatters soon swept away.

A city that spends several hundred thousand dollars taking care of the mayor's bicycle when he travels can surely find the money, the time, and — most necessary — the willpower to pay more attention to the grievous conditions in which too many children live every single day in this city.    Our political leaders are ardently focused on education reform, which is necessary, but the rhetoric of education reform currently dismisses as irrelevant the conditions in which children live.

Oscar Fuentes won't be in class today.   Who will notice?

We have become a nation of anger junkies.  If we're not mad — no, outraged — at someone or something this minute, wait another minute and we'll find some cause to stoke the flames of rage.  We don't have reasoned disagreements, well-played debates any more; we go at each other with flamethrowers, and the heck with the collateral wreckage that comes with winning the argument.  Except that nobody really wins arguments any more, we just find new causes to shout about.

Health Care.   Has any topic spawned more overheated, inflammatory, hyperbolic rhetoric in recent memory?  I just finished reading an op-ed column in the New York Times by Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling — "Trading Women's Rights for Political Power." In this column, these two long-time women's rights leaders essentially threaten to tear the Democratic Party apart because they disagree with the decision of the Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives to accept an amendment (Stupak-Pitts) to the Health Care bill that restricts federal funding for abortions.   In a fascinating object lesson in the art of political compromise, the party leaders decided that accepting the conservative amendment was necessary in order to gain the ultimate goal of passing the legislation.   Michelman and Kissling's words drip with venom:  "If Democrats do not commit themselves to defeating the amendment, then they will face an uncompromising effort by Democratic women to defeat them, regardless of the cost to the party’s precious majority." Scorched earth tactics usually wind up burning down the entire house.  Rush Limbaugh is licking his considerable chops.  People who can't figure out the difference between the public option and Blue Cross  go online to pile-on incendiary comments because shouting seems to be the only way we can deal with what we don't understand about the health care package — or just about anything else that's more than a tweet long.

Meanwhile, there's a war on — is anybody paying attention?   We are outraged over Mayor Fenty's use of federal SUVs to transport his bike to races (what was he thinking?) but when we hear the word "Afghanistan" we quickly turn the channel to something we understand and can rant about, like the fate of the Balloon Boy's parents.    Where's the outrage over the war?   We may not even be sure what to be outraged about any more, so we stick to stuff we really understand, like whether Dan Snyder is a "bad man" with a "dark heart" in the words of Riggo. (Ya know, John, "evil" is a good word for Osama bin Laden, but Dan Snyder?  Don't waste a good word on a sad subject!)

I often wonder if the current national culture of anger and recrimination is a symptom of our deeper sense of powerlessness brought on by the endless war that we don't understand and can't seem to stop, and the ever-present fear that another deranged person with a gun (or something worse) is going to let loose any minute.   David Brooks had an interesting column the other day, "The Rush to Therapy," in which he contends that the national reaction to Major Nidal Malik Hasan's murderous rampage at Fort Hood — a reaction that deliberatly tried to reduce anti-Muslim sentiments by making Hasan out to be a disordered person — masks the real narrative of the current war, which Brooks states is the American struggle against Islam, "the central feature of American foreign policy."

I disagree with Brooks' statement in that he makes it seem like America's war efforts are directed against a specific religion, an organization, something akin to a nation-state.    In fact, the central problem of America's war policy for the last decade, since September 11, is that we are still fighting by fairly conventional rules when the "enemy" is asymmetrical — individuals, not nations; ideologies, not ruling parties.  The real enemy is the power of the individual fueled by anger and rage, however inchoate, against anyone with whom he or she disagrees.   Terrorist leaders exploit that rage quite well, banding like-minded individuals together in small cells, stoking those fires so high that the individuals, themselves, become weapons.

Blind rage, destructive goals are not the characteristics of a good society, a resilient nation, a peaceful civilization.   Somewhere along the line, we've allowed the culture of recrimination, anger, blame and outrage to overwhelm common sense, enlightened compromise, and self-less solutions for the common good.   The fretful, unsettling current reality for so many Americans will not improve until we stop shouting, dial-back on the expressions of rage over every disagreement, and learn to give up some of what we want for ourselves so that the community can enjoy peace.

In the final installment of this series of reflections on the state of teacher education, I am lifting up just a few more comments from faculty — all comments are posted to the "comments" part of this blog on prior days, but these are thought-provoking and seem worth repeating here:

Dr. Deborah Litt adds these thoughts to the discussion:

"I would like to add some comments about the role of institutional constraints in hindering improvement in our most troubled school systems.

"Yes, there are ineffective, discouraged and burnt-out teachers. There are individuals whose insufficient knowledge or mean-spirited attitude toward young people should have disqualified them from entering the profession in the first place. And, yes, teacher education programs could and should be doing a better job preparing teachers, especially in preparing teachers for teaching in schools with high concentrations of children living in poverty. But blaming all the ills of our least effective school systems on bad teachers or the preparation they have received, not only ignores the life circumstances of so many of our children living in poverty as President McGuire stated in her blog, but ignores the powerful interaction between teachers and settings in which they are placed.

"Teacher educators across the country bemoan the fact that what future teachers, particularly middle and secondary teachers, learn in Schools of Education often attenuates–or is even summarily cast off–once the new teachers begin work in settings with high percentages of high-need students. (It is one of the paradoxes of American education that the students most in need of student-centered and individually tailored curricula are least likely to receive it.)

"Institutional constraints and the power of tradition exert an enormous influence upon new teachers. School system mandates and building norms and traditions may press against “best practice” ideas learned in Schools of Education. Taught that students need “just right” books in order to make progress in reading, the new teacher is confronted with one school board-mandated grade-level textbook for all students whether or not the children are capable of reading that text. What is the new (untenured) teacher to do when confronted with a mandatory whole class scripted (the teacher reads a script verbatim) curricula, or with pacing guides that leave some students hopelessly behind and other hopelessly bored? Or when told to devote an hour a day—an hour a day!—to test-taking practice rather than instruction and practice in core subjects.

"New teachers may feel isolated from colleagues if they try to conduct classes in a more student-centered manner than is common in their setting. Or their proposals for activities to bring families into the building may meet with a “we know better it will never happen” response. Even the students often resist new approaches, especially if they are required to work harder than they have been accustomed to. In Seymour Sarason’s seminal analysis (1971) of school reform, The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change, Sarason points out that there’s an unwritten contract between the students and the teachers in most high schools—don’t challenge us intellectually and we won’t give you trouble. Most new teachers conform to the culture of the school they find themselves in, afraid to lose their jobs or uncomfortable with isolation from the community they find themselves in. (This is one reason Teach for America places more than one teacher in a building.)

"One could argue that if what new teachers learn is quickly abandoned then the Schools of Education are not doing their jobs properly. And there is something to be said for that. Maybe the Schools of Education need to find ways to influence school boards, state boards of education, and the federal Department of Education so that policies and administrative practices are not working at cross-purposes with solid classroom instruction. Certainly, Schools of Education need to equip newly minted teachers with the skills to advocate for better practices in their buildings. My colleagues here at Trinity believe we need to do more to build the capacity for advocacy among our students, but we have a long way to go.

"Longer and more intense mentorships between true master teachers and prospective teachers in schools serving high proportions of high needs students are a proven method of making new teachers more skilled and more resistant to forces undermining their good practices. But, school systems often do not want a truly collaborative relationship with a School of Education; they are often unwilling to allow Schools of Education to select the mentor teachers or to give student teachers much responsibility for fear of lower test scores. Schools of Education will need to figure out how to leverage their power to assure that their students obtain the very best apprenticeship experience possible. More Schools of Education should consider models in which support for new teachers continues during a new teacher’s first few years in the classroom.

"We must also ask if there sufficient truly master level teachers in the lowest performing school districts to mentor and nurture the many new teachers we will soon need. If not, Schools of Education have an important role to play in capacity building. But, Institutions of Higher Education have institutional constraints of their own. Universities traditionally reward faculty members for publishing and for service within the university. How would follow-up support for recent graduates or providing professional development to teachers in a public school fit the university’s vision of faculty work?

"I raise these issues because I do not believe it possible to “fix” troubled schools by working on only one element of a complex interaction.

"Finally, while acknowledging that there are some truly bad apples in any school system, there is a much larger group of teachers who are performing below their capacity because they discouraged, tired, underappreciated, playing it safe, or need some training in new approaches. These teachers can be inspired by strong leadership and ongoing professional development. Schools where teachers learn together, where their ideas and hard work are appreciated, where they work collaboratively to solve problems and make their schools exciting places to learn are rewarding and exciting places to work. Make our schools vibrant learning communities for teachers, and we will create, attract, and retain the talented, dedicated teachers we so desperately need.

"The assumption that teachers can create and maintain those conditions which make school learning and school living stimulating for children, without those same conditions existing for teachers, has no warrant in the history of man. (pp. 123-124) Seymour Sarason (1972), The Creation of Settings and the Future Societies"

For other faculty comments, including Dr. Robert Redmond, Dr. Larry Riccio, and Dr Eirini Gouleta see the comments section that accompanies Who Will Teach?

Thanks to all faculty and students for engaging in this important discussion!

Many great comments continue to come in on my original blog in this series Who Will Teach? Students in Early Childhood Education offer these thoughts on the discussion:

Makai Kellogg writes:

"Yesterday after leaving my preschool to go to Trinity for class, I came across a bumper sticker that read "It's too bad that the people who know how to run the country are too busy teaching school." After reading President McGuire's blog, this message rang even more true in spite of the 'teacher bashing' that has been going on. I agree that good teachers need to be respected and not criticized because of bad teachers. As a former DCPS student, I have personally experienced problems such as unprepared, unmotivated teachers and facilities that were literally falling apart. At the same time I also had the opportunity to be taught by teachers who told me the truth and used their own resources to better convey meaning to their students. Blaming does not solve anything. Solutions addressing all facets of education, from meeting children's basic needs to properly training teachers, will better evoke change for the better. I am thankful that I have professors here at Trinity dedicated to preparing and producing high quality teachers so that one day the conversation will shift from the failures of our public schools to how our public schools have become the model for others."

Juliana Labetti writes:

"It has become the norm to point fingers at those around us and place blame on others for mistakes made by many. This approach will solve nothing. I have heard Dr. Brereton say many times that the only person we can change is our self. It is time for everyone involved in education in this country to reflect inward and determine what they can do to better the current system. The professors in the education department at Trinity allow for their graduate students to take time to reflect on the kinds of teachers we want to become and the steps we must complete in order to accomplish our goals. By encouraging us to challenge ourselves and open our eyes to the changing educational climate, these education professors are insuring that a committed, confident, and well prepared group of new teachers join in the task of improving our children’s education."

Patti Hellmuth writes:

"My first year of teaching I taught at the Patrick Gavin Middle School in South Boston in a Substantially Separate Classroom under 766. In this classroom, there were six boys – three black and three white who were all from impoverished backgrounds. The boys were in the sixth grade and they could barely read or write. The schools had failed them, their parents had failed them, and no one knew what to do with them. At this point because they had gotten into so much trouble at school, they were not allowed to attend the regular classes, not allowed to eat in the cafeteria, not allowed to participate in sports, and not allowed to be in the hallways without an escort.

"In this classroom, I worked alongside another teacher and we both agreed that the school obviously did not want the boys there and the current curriculum had failed the boys. Therefore, we went onto devise our own plan for the boys and it worked. Our first job was to get the boys to get along and to trust one another and we did. Our next plan was to get the boys educated so, in the morning we taught the boys in school and for the afternoon we took the boys out of school and we visited museums, parks, libraries, and so on. I am happy to report that at the end of the school year, they were all at grade level and feeling much better about themselves.

"I believe in continuing to teach children based on their ability to do the work because not all of the children of all of the people have the same capacity. The solution is to provide a curriculum that meets the needs of the various learners. All teachers and schools need to support an educational philosophy that supports exposing children to different levels of instruction because the reality is that no two children have the same strengths or learn in the same way.

"Trinity has allowed me to meet some wonderful professors and to continue to believe that I can make a difference in children’s lives. My role as a teacher is to inspire students to do their best and not only motivate them to learn, but also teach them how to learn, and doing so in a manner that is relevant, meaningful, and memorable. As a teacher, I must be a strong and original leader with characteristics of honesty, principle and decency because teachers influence students by example. Dr. Brereton has taught me that a good teacher is about style, humor, listening, questioning, being responsive, and remembering that each student and class is different."

What are your ideas on how to address the challenges of school reform and teacher quality?   Join this discussion by clicking on the "comments" box below and let me know what you think!

Read these previous blogs:

Who Will Teach? (November 1, 2009)

Who Will Teach?  Faculty Respond (November 4, 2009)

Who Will Teach?  More Faculty Voices (November 5, 2009)

Yesterday, I met with the School of Education Faculty to discuss the current situation with school reform, teacher education, and ways in which Trinity might take a more prominent role in contributing to new models for educational success in our city.   The faculty is eager to move ahead with genuine transformation of our work in education and counseling — and great ideas abound!  Secretary Duncan's call to action is resonating at Trinity, and this will have a very productive long-term impact on our effectiveness in educating school leaders, teachers, counselors and others.

Dr. Amy Brereton wrote a comment on my previous blog about Secretary Duncan's speech at Columbia, and what she has to say is so important that I'm bringing it forward for consideration here, see below….. And, what do YOU think?   Please join this discussion by clicking on the "comments" link below, or send me your thoughts in an email to president@trinitydc.edu

Continue reading this entry…