Hi Peter,
Perhaps I am idealistic and looking through rose colored glasses, but I simply do not remember this level of corruption since before the New Deal - from top to bottom. You have anecdotal evidence - there was not as much of a revolving door between those who create the policies and those who make money off of those policies - and there is are larger data sets - income distribution has not been this skewed since the guilded age. "Always was and always will be" and "This is the best system we have" I have found to be not very constructive ways of looking at the world.
And yes, that's my point - that is the way things are now and rearranging administrative structures probably won't help and may even make things worse.
Michael
________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky
Sent: Sun 4/1/2012 10:03 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [xmca] Centralized vs. Distributed decision-making in schools
Michael, I think I can say with confidence that these things are happening right now, and have been happening for as long as I can remember: "If you send eudcation decisions back to the local level I worry that teachers will face the same problems. Even now principals and school boards run around touting how their test scores are superior to the community next door and that's why they deserve power and a raise. It might even have the reverse effect of pitting administrators even more against teachers, and administrators demanding complete power because they are the "bosses." Parents, especially those in marginalized populations, are still dependent on general information sources for what is a "good" school and will many will be conned into believing test scores tell them something of extraordinary importance."
It'd be nice to get rid of corruption. But that seems pretty idealistic to me. I doubt if it's worse now than in previous eras, if my reading of history is accurate.
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 8:28 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [xmca] Centralized vs. Distributed decision-making in schools
I've been following this excellent discussion because it is close to my heart. These days I am thinking more that the problem lies in process, not in structure - and until we change processes that changing structure is more or less rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. As long as we are following a suffoicating neo-liberal model where the goal is a bottom line that is easily measurable, offers very easy results that people can aggregate and compare, and we believe that success is measured in the aggregation, I do not believe it matters whether education is structured through a centralized model or a distributed model. We also need to do something about the pervasive corruption within our society. If you send eudcation decisions back to the local level I worry that teachers will face the same problems. Even now principals and school boards run around touting how their test scores are superior to the community next door and that's why they deserve power and a raise. It might even have the reverse effect of pitting administrators even more against teachers, and administrators demanding complete power because they are the "bosses." Parents, especially those in marginalized populations, are still dependent on general information sources for what is a "good" school and will many will be conned into believing test scores tell them something of extraordinary importance.
Any change in education I think won't happen from a top down change in structure, but a grass roots organization within individual communities, including development of information sources and open discussions about what a worthwhile education system means. It also has to be combined with the idea that every student have the same amount of resources.
Michael
________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky
Sent: Sun 4/1/2012 8:01 AM
To: ablunden@mira.net<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>; eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
Subject: RE: [xmca] Centralized vs. Distributed decision-making in schools
In one of the Post pieces, I do use the university model, which relies on faculty expertise and judgment and is both competitive and collaborative. I'm also happy with my level of academic freedom. I'm sure it'd be flawed, but nothing like what Arne Duncan's got in mind. See http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/04/01/the-billion-dollar-question-for-arne-duncan-why-has-testing-become-the-driver-in-school-reform/ in today's Atlanta paper, where I've written most of my op-ed pieces. I do strongly encourage people to take their arguments to the people, which means doing more public intellectual work in newspapers and on the web. Otherwise, we're just having very interesting conversations among ourselves, while others are getting into the heads of the policymakers.
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 7:47 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Centralized vs. Distributed decision-making in schools
He, he! I think you are safe there, Peter, I agree.
I guess I interpreted your call for "decantralisation" as devolving ruling what happens in a class down to school or county level, but what you are talking about is really something different, isn't it? Like academics used to have "academic freedom." Whatever funding system and system of awarding certificates there may be, you are saying "leave what happens in the classroom to the teachers." Sounds good to me.
Andy
Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
> Andy, I'll let you know when there are thousands of little teacher-dictators running educational policy in the US. Right now they can't even dictate when they go to the bathroom, much less make decisions that oppress others.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 6:53 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Centralized vs. Distributed decision-making in schools
>
> Well, I am certainly following this discussion, Peter, and with interest, despite a suspicion that my views on the question risked being dismissed as that of an "orthodox marxist." :) I think, Peter, it makes little difference whether education (or the economy) is run by thousands of little dictators or one great dictator. Well, probably, we think thousands of little dictators is better because a few kids will survive thanks to the odd benign dictator. It does seem though that parties of all persuasion who gain power at national or state or whatever level set out to "teacher-proof" the education of children. If that is part of your complaint, I agree with you.
>
> I do think Jay is arguing in the right direction nthough. No kind of planning will work in the absence of a working democracy. The best thing we can do is criticise the way things are done - content rather than form - i.e., criticise education not organisation. Lousy theories of education can only be resolved by a social movement I think, not an argument how education is organised.
>
> Andy
>
> Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
>
>> Thanks Jay (although this seems to be a dialogue between you and me, rather than something others are interested in discussing),
>>
>> I do hope that you're not suggesting that we kill people who disagree with us ("but jail, penury, public ridicule, or death"). Though there are days......
>>
>> I don't see a world in which teachers are making unilateral decisions. I see them given the opportunity to make few decisions, if any, at all. Arne Duncan's unilateral approach has been a thorough disaster, which supports your point. But that's top-down power exercised by one individual over many thousands. Teachers hardly have such opportunities, and so I'll spare their lives for the moment.
>>
>> I don't think that there will be much in-servicing money available to have experts brought in to address interesting problems like cell phone usage, when in-servicing will no doubt be dedicated to meeting Common Core Standards developed by people with lots of money and no experience in classrooms.
>>
>> When all's said and done, I don't think that anybody in authority will listen to me, Jay, or anyone else not backed by corporate power.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Jay Lemke
>> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:12 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Centralized vs. Distributed decision-making in schools
>>
>>
>> Peter and all,
>>
>> On the wider issue of centralized vs distributed, my view is that the real trick is to figure out how to assign power/responsibility for different kinds of decisions and policies across a range of more local to more global (centralized) levels of decision-making institutions.
>>
>> I don't think that going all-central or all-local gives the best results. I'd like to see many levels of decision-making, which has been the US tradition in principle, though not in practice (local organizations, towns, counties, states, federal) as revenue and authority have become increasingly centralized here.
>>
>> But what we really need is some actual political SCIENCE: theories and understandings that would enable us to make informed decisions about which matters should be in the purview of which levels of decision-making. "Distributed", not in the sense of maximally local, but in the sense of distributed across the various levels of organization of the eco-social system.
>>
>> I think the systems of social and political organization that we have are really very primitive. Some european countries have experimented with more sophisticated systems, but mainly at an advisory, or public-input level. The main force working against the development of better approaches is the high-benefit, lo-cost dynamics of power accumulation. The logical countermeasure would be to greatly increase the risk to the decision-makers and power-brokers of bad policy. Not just losing an election, or floating off on your golden parachute, but jail, penury, public ridicule, or death. There needs to be a substantial incentive to make sure that power gets passed around and that decisions are made by the people who are best positioned to make the right ones.
>>
>> In education, while I agree that teachers are often better positioned to make good decisions --- about some things --- than school boards, state officials, or federal agencies, what's important is to figure out WHICH things those are. And it may not be simply a category like Teachers which is the relevant alternative, but rather the functioning network of involved people: which means, at the local level, whether classroom or school, not just teachers, but also Students. And for some things, parents and perhaps others.
>>
>> I think the recent discussion here about cellphones in the classroom pointed pretty clearly to ways in which teachers' judgments could be improved by sitting down and candidly discussing differences in viewpoint with students (Ken Tobin, formerly Penn, now CUNY, has a lot of research evidence to support this). The power to make unilateral decisions on matters affecting others is (almost always) the enemy of good decision-making. That applies to dictators, oligarchies, and bureaucracies; and it applies to teachers, parents, and professors as well.
>>
>> Or so it seems to me.
>>
>> JAY.
>>
>>
>> Jay Lemke
>> Senior Research Scientist
>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition Adjunct Professor, Department of Communication University of California - San Diego
>> 9500 Gilman Drive
>> La Jolla, California 92093-0506
>>
>> New Website: www.jaylemke.com<http://www.jaylemke.com <http://www.jaylemke.com/> >
>>
>> Professor (Adjunct status 2011-2012)
>> School of Education
>> University of Michigan
>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>
>> Professor Emeritus
>> City University of New York
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 30, 2012, at 3:11 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks Jay. My main point if that if you want to attract and retain great teachers, you need to make teaching an attractive profession. I'll take my chances with entrusting teachers with responsibility as a way to help them make the difference that they get into the profession for.
>>>
>>> Risks? Of course. But I'll go with whatever risks follow from listening to teachers, rather than having them straightjacketed by policies made by people who just don't understand teaching, learning, or schooling.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that people could contest Diamond's conclusions, and I think he does a nice job of presenting the views of people who disagree with him and explaining why he believes what he does. At http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Societies-ebook/dp/B000VDUWMC/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1333102072&sr=8-7 Amazon Prime members can download the book for free. So see for yourself if you think he's on or off the mark.
>>>
>>> Jay refers to two Washington Post pieces. Anthony Barra posted a link to one of them previously. I'll re-post that one, plus the new one, next.
>>>
>>> Smagorinsky, P. (2012, March 28). How to remake the Education Department (or, it's time to give teachers a chance). The Answer Sheet of The Washington Post. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/how-to-remake-the-education-department-or-its-time-to-give-teachers-a-chance/2012/03/21/gIQAFg3KfS_blog.html#pagebreak
>>>
>>>
>>> Smagorinsky, P. (2012, March 11). Why the Ed Department should be
>>> reconceived-or abolished. The Answer Sheet of The Washington Post.
>>> Available at
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/why-the-ed-depar
>>> tment-should-be-reconceived--or-abolished/2012/03/09/gIQAHfdB5R_blog.h
>>> tml#pagebreak
>>>
>>> If you're an orthodox Marxist, you might not like either one. But then, I'm a capitalist, albeit of the kinder and gentler sort.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>> On Behalf Of Jay Lemke
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:33 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Centralized vs. Distributed decision-making in
>>> schools
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting to see the discussion about wrong-headed education policy in the US, and it seems elsewhere (as the same logic leads to the same mistakes).
>>>
>>> I think Peter's indictment of the DOE and our federal education
>>> policy, so ridiculously over-weighted toward test results (which test
>>> only what's easy, and profitable, to test, and not the higher aims of
>>> education) and inevitably driving the whole system toward mediocrity,
>>> is strong and on target. (I note that mediocrity is actually an
>>> improvement for those in the worst schools, though not an improvement
>>> that will have much lasting value in their lives.)
>>>
>>> In particular, I was surprised at just how much a single educational publishing and testing corporation (McGraw-Hill) makes off the memorize-test-forget system. And Peter's analysis of the lack of real qualifications of the last two heads of the federal Education department (Duncan and Paige) seems to show that our senior politicians still believe, as do most Americans, that everyone and anyone is an expert on education, since we've all been to school (and most hated the experience).
>>>
>>> But Peter's recipe of decentralization (elaborated on in a new opinion piece in the Washington Post -- click the original one, then search on his name) seems to carry a lot of risks as well. We used to have a completely decentralized educational system in the US, town by town, and to a lesser degree state by state, and one of the most significant effects of this was the enormous disparity between local districts in what they taught (e.g. no evolution in biology) and how much they spent (a factor of 2 or more between different districts and states, per student). Education in some states was reliably awful (Alabama, Mississippi) and in others reliably decent (Minnesota, Wisconsin). Local school boards everywhere in the country were notoriously financially corrupt, and rarely were those elected to them more qualified than Duncan or Paige, and probably even less so. The few good districts could be very, very good. The many bad districts were terrible.
>>>
>>> Peter puts a lot of faith in teachers and their judgment, or at least their commitment and their capacity to innovate responsively in the interests of their students' learning. I think this is a difficult area to have certainty about. In the last 50 years the teaching profession has lost a lot of really smart women as other career paths have become open to them, and many teachers who served their students well with experience built up over 20 years of more on the job have been replaced by a rapid turnover of very young and inexperienced teachers who leave the profession, often disillusioned, after a few years. Working conditions in schools are very poor compared to almost all other MA-requiring careers. The teaching profession today is drawing its candidates from the bottom tiers of college graduates in terms of academic achievement. Good teachers can overcome many other obstacles in the system, but there just aren't enough of them -- and I don't think there ever will be. A radically different model is needed.
>>>
>>> Peter's new piece relies a lot on Jared Diamond's analysis of the benefits of decentralized competition, but frankly I don't think his work is really all that good. A lot of the analysis and conclusions strike me as exculpatory toward European imperialism and colonialism on the global historical stage. I enjoyed a lot of the details and some of the connections he makes, but I don't think the grand conclusions are reliable.
>>>
>>> Anyway, Peter, I really applaud you for putting your views out there in such a public forum (more of us should!), and I think you've targeted one of the key problems; I'm just not so persuaded about the solution.
>>>
>>> JAY.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jay Lemke
>>> Senior Research Scientist
>>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition Adjunct Professor,
>>> Department of Communication University of California - San Diego
>>> 9500 Gilman Drive
>>> La Jolla, California 92093-0506
>>>
>>> New Website: www.jaylemke.com<http://www.jaylemke.com <http://www.jaylemke.com/> >
>>>
>>> Professor (Adjunct status 2011-2012)
>>> School of Education
>>> University of Michigan
>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>
>>> Professor Emeritus
>>> City University of New York
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Greg Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> As an interesting side note, this argument has been particularly
>>>> welcomed by the political right in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Makes me wonder if there isn't the possibility of a political
>>>> convergence in the US?
>>>>
>>>> (e.g. OWS and the Tea Party coming together. If only they didn't hate
>>>> each other so much...).
>>>>
>>>> (a post-democratic revolution?)
>>>>
>>>> -greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Wow! That article breathes fire! Great writing, Peter. Education
>>>>> Departments in my country as in others have been obliged to copy the
>>>>> US system! Presumably political leaders that only ever learnt when
>>>>> to put their hands up and how to tick boxes want a population
>>>>> trained in this way of life. But seriously, is decentralisation the way to go?
>>>>> Is idiotic education policies the result of "big government" or just bad government?
>>>>> Or is this just a polemical stance, like "show me a good reason for
>>>>> having an Education Department, then"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anthony Barra wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> This dispatch on US education reform and the powers that be landed
>>>>>> on my Facebook page last night: "Why the Ed Department should be
>>>>>> reconceived - or abolished" - by Peter Smagorinsky
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/**blogs/answer-sheet/post/why-**
>>>>>> the-ed-department-should-be-**reconceived--or-abolished/**
>>>>>> 2012/03/09/gIQAHfdB5R_blog.**html<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blo%0b>>>>>>> g
>>>>>> s/answer-sheet/post/why-the-ed-department-should-be-reconceived--or
>>>>>> - abolished/2012/03/09/gIQAHfdB5R_blog.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An educator on education policy, in the public sphere! More of
>>>>>> this please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One excerpt:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Instead of having a highly centralized administration powered by
>>>>>> money
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> contributed by textbook publishers and other entrepreneurs cashing
>>>>>>> in on the lucrative enterprise of educational materials
>>>>>>> production, I would have a *highly distributed approach*** in
>>>>>>> which most decision-making is local and includes - and indeed,
>>>>>>> relies on - the perspective of teachers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Presently, there's little reason for practicing teachers to<
>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.**com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/**
>>>>>>> five-ways-school-reform-is-**hurting-teacher-quality/2012/**
>>>>>>> 03/08/gIQAHUMK3R_blog.html<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ans
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ans%0b>>>>>>>> w
>>>>>>> er-sheet/post/five-ways-school-reform-is-hurting-teacher-quality/2
>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>> 12/03/08/gIQAHUMK3R_blog.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **keep up with the latest ideas emerging from credible sources,
>>>>>>>> or to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> engage
>>>>>>> in the process of producing those ideas and becoming credible
>>>>>>> sources themselves. The approach that I suggest would lend urgency
>>>>>>> to the need for teachers to be informed in order to make sound
>>>>>>> decisions. It would place a premium on being a reflective
>>>>>>> practitioner who is attentive to classroom processes and student
>>>>>>> learning, because such observations would become part of the
>>>>>>> broader school conversation about how to best educate the students
>>>>>>> who attend the school."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***emphasis added* because I (as a citizen, not just educator)
>>>>>> would love to hear more about this especially.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mai
>>>>>> l
>>>>>> man/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> Joint Editor MCA:
>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.
>>>>> c om/toc/hmca20/18/1> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>> Book:
>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/**product/1608461459/<http://www.amazon.com
>>>>> /
>>>>> gp/product/1608461459/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________**____________
>>>>> _____
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mail
>>>>> m
>>>>> an/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>>> Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar Laboratory of Comparative
>>>> Human Cognition Department of Communication University of California,
>>>> San Diego __________________________________________
>>>> _____
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1608461459/
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
<<winmail.dat>>
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca