The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, whose motto is “Advancing Educational Excellence” has the following as its mission statement:
High Expectations for All Schools
We believe that all schools that are supported with public funds—whether in the district, charter, or private school sector—should be held accountable for helping their students make academic progress from year to year. Under ESSA, most states have built accountability systems that are better than ever. Now the challenge is to make high expectations a reality at the classroom level.
They also say that charter schools and Catholic schools have been successful in giving good educations to children who have grown up in poverty. Wikipedia notes that “The Thomas B. Fordham Institute is an ideologically conservative American nonprofit education policy think tank, with offices in Washington, D.C., Columbus, Ohio, and Dayton, Ohio. The institute supports and publishes research on education policy in the United States.”
I say this because, although articles like the one highlighted here should be judged on their own, one should know the agenda of the venue that’s publishing them. What we have is a statement by Robert Pondiscio, who is described this way:
Robert Pondiscio is senior fellow and vice president for external affairs at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. He writes and speaks extensively on education and education-reform issues, with an emphasis on literacy, curriculum, civic education, and classroom practice. His 2019 book, How the Other Half Learns, based on a year of observations at New York City’s Success Academy network of charter schools, was praised as “morally disturbing” and “unsparingly honest” by the New York Times. After twenty years in journalism, including senior positions at TIME and Business Week, Robert became a fifth-grade teacher at a struggling South Bronx public school in 2002. [JAC: He did that for five years.] He subsequently served as vice president for the Core Knowledge Foundation, and taught civics at Democracy Prep Public Schools, a network of high-performing charter schools based in Harlem, New York.
A commitment of five years in a South Bronx public school is not to be taken lightly, nor as a mere experiment. My own judgment is that the guy is truly committed to improving secondary-school education for all, and was trying to see if his principles worked in the classroom
While Pondiscio may have an agenda for promoting charter schools, he’s also one of many teachers who seems committed to helping all kids learn, and, in the article below, argues that Kendi-an style “antiracist” teaching is not the way. In fact, Pondiscio says that, while teaching in the South Bronx public school, he says he never taught a single child who was white. Note, too, that it was a public school, not a charter school.
Click on the screenshot to hear his plaint, which is that he thinks that all children should be taught to strive for excellence, with members of different races all held to the same high standards.
This guy hardly seems like a racist. Here are a few statements he makes:
The point is so obvious yet it cannot be said enough: We do not give families of color and those in poverty the same range of options and quality of education that White and affluent families often take for granted. It’s why I became a teacher, starting in 2002. I taught full-time for five years in a public school in the South Bronx, and intermittently since at a pair of Harlem charter schools. What drew me to this work and keeps me engaged in it is the manifest unfairness of American education to low-income, Black, and Brown children who comprise, without exception, every student I’ve ever taught.
For most of those twenty years, I’ve held a set of assumptions and ideals about what it means to be an effective teacher of children of color (and frankly, children of any race or background). It means holding every pupil to high standards and expectations for academics and classroom conduct; offering a rich and rigorous curriculum, taught as engagingly as possible; and fostering a school culture and climate that valorizes student achievement. Above all, it means holding firmly to the conviction that children do not fail. Rather adults fail children when schools do not deliver any or all of these ingredients.
Nor does he favor a “white curriculum” that sanitizes history or ignores contributions of different groups:
. . . . There can be no question that every child in an American K–12 school should have the opportunity to see their history, heritage, and culture reflected in their education. No part of me is interested in imposing a “Eurocentric” curriculum on children, venerating “dead White males,” or presenting anything less than a clear-eyed view of American history. But efforts to “decolonize” curriculum, “disrupt texts,” or other efforts to de-emphasize “Whiteness” in curriculum seems less likely to liberate Black and Brown students than to hold them further back. This is not parochialism, but a reflection of how language proficiency works. It rests on a large body of common background knowledge shared between readers, writers, speakers, and listeners. It is uncomfortable to acknowledge—yet we must—the degree to which this both reflects and grows organically from the knowledge, allusions, and idioms of the culture that dominates it. In a diverse and plural society, language is a vernacular engine, borrowing words and allusions at a dizzying pace, but that is not a process that can be dictated or controlled. A clear-eyed view of language proficiency obligates us to expose children to the full range of taken-for-granted knowledge that their fellow citizens possess. At present, that requires familiarity with a substantial (if perhaps declining) amount of Western thought, literature, history, science, and art. To pretend otherwise is to risk cementing disadvantage in place, or to embrace a separatist impulse, neither of which can be countenanced.
and this:
If the education reform movement has accomplished nothing else, it has made it unacceptable to evince any belief but the opposite one: The achievement gap is evidence of institutional failure, not a failure on the part of Black test-takers. Discrediting any reference to a racial achievement gap is counterproductive to the interests of students of color. The NAACP, the National Urban League, La Raza, and nine other civil right groups have denounced anti-testing efforts to “hide the achievement gap,” noting that test data “are critical for understanding whether and where there is equal opportunity.” Ian Rowe, a Black intellectual, Fordham trustee, and charter school founder, insists that antiracist policies and practices are becoming “the unintended, modern day version of the soft bigotry of low expectations.” I strongly agree. Does saying so render me unfit to teach Black and Brown children?
I wasn’t aware that organizations like the NAACP or the Urban League, as well as other civil rights groups (see the link), have denounced anti-testing efforts, though Ibram Kendi claims that these standardized tests are racist. But, as the groups say in their joint letter, “We cannot fix what we cannot measure.”
What Pondiscio objects to is differential treatment of students of different races, holding them to different expectations. Some of this comes from the view that different cultures (read “different races”) have different styles of learning. But as Pondiscio avers, “close reasoning, the written word, and objectivity” should not be seen as “white” practices that are irrelevant to minority children, as Kendi would argue (as Kendi says, “the only remedy to racist discriminiation is antiracist discrimination”). The constant division of students by race, and the instillation of a victimhood mentality in minority children and a “you are an oppressor” mentality in whites is, says Pondiscio, not only tribalistic, but damaging to children:
Attempts to create “safe spaces” where students never encounter upsetting words, images, or ideas strike many of us as misguided. Education inevitably includes confronting students with ideas, views, and information that they may find upsetting, but it never includes upsetting them because of who they are or what they look like. No element of ethical classroom practice should allow inflicting intentional harm or emotional distress on students—rich or poor, Black or White—or seek to make a virtue of it. It is immoral and educational malpractice. Neither should we encourage in children a sense of insurmountable oppression, victimhood, or grievance—the very opposite of the uplifting formation of mind and character that education should aspire to. Any pedagogy or curriculum that ascribes traits, motives, or mindsets to one particular race—oppressors versus oppressed; perfectionism, urgency, and individualism as “hallmarks of white supremacy culture,” etc.—cannot call itself “antiracist.” It is racist and unacceptable.
[Paul] Rossi speaks for many of us in the profession who share his concern that what is being done in the name of equity “reinforces the worst impulses we have as human beings: our tendency toward tribalism and sectarianism that a truly liberal education is meant to transcend.”
At the end, Pondiscio asks plaintively, after arguing that high standards and expectations should hold for all students, regardless of race, “Would you feel comfortable with me as your child’s teacher? Yes or no?”
Somehow I suspect that in secondary schools, most parents would say “yes,” but at colleges like Smith, Middlebury, and Haverford, the administration would say “no.”
And I wonder what kind of education Ibram Kendi would give to a mixed classroom of black and white students. If you asked me if I’d feel comfortable with him as anybody’s teacher, I’d have to say no, even though I don’t have children.
h/t: Luana
Colin Wright has reported on the outrageous speaking fees commanded by Kendi ($20,000 for a single Zoom call), while Robin DiAngelo and many others have also found the “anti-racism” and “diversity consulting” business to be astonishingly lucrative (Nikole Hannah-Jones has just been hired by UNC), yet few indeed have the courage to criticize the disseminating of BLM/CRT/1619 propaganda as the racket which it has certainly become.
I think what really counts in the United States public education system – maybe others – is the small number of individuals on any specific school committee, and what ideas those individuals push and vote on. The state or federal guidelines I think have only so much weight.
Clearly articulated ideas like in this post are important for everyone on those boards to hopefully consider. However, a slight cynicism of the voting process in a school committee context suggests the committee member who votes with an unpopular viewpoint is simply asking for trouble for themselves and family, and serving to make The Elect’s point for them.
Do you really like “The Elect” as a name for these people? With all the brouhaha right now over voting, and politics in general, it strikes me as a particularly bad name. Although I have the greatest respect for John McWhorter and his ideas, this is a bad choice IMHO.
McWhorter’s case for The Elect is strong, as I have read it, and the name “The Elect” is clear and expressive in my view, contrasting well with ad hoc names like “wokesters”, “woke”, and such.
It is important to call things by their proper name, but in this case, the proper name is not settled. We shall see.
Confusion of “The Elect” with “elections”, “electorate”, “President Elect” appears to me to be of the same significance of other words or names that have multiple definitions, like a favorite recent one of mine “desert” – philosophy or geography (if I understand).
No one voted for The Elect so why are they called that? I get the religion part of his argument but that should lead to The Woke Priesthood or something similar. Even better would be to give a name to their religion. How about Institutionalized Black Disempowerment? Ok, too long and not religiousy.
“No one voted for The Elect so why are they called that?”
The Elect did – that is what is clever about the name.
Come on people, it is easy to get information today. It is a reference to the Calvinist idea of the Elect, a group of people chosen before birth to be the ones who go to heaven.
Thanks! I didn’t know that!
Part of what makes a good name is not needing to Google it to figure out the reference. I know nothing much about Calvinism as I don’t follow religion very closely.
Well, I guess “The Elect” is not particularly “accessible” (as the NY Times is wont to reflect.)
In the beginning one knows nothing. Then one must be necessarily taught, and hopefully taught/inspired to develope a bit of intellectual curiosity so as to prompt to independently seek information, whether via Google, or newspapers, libraries, etc. The less one knows, the less likely one finds understanding of a given topic “accessible.”
If memory serves me, am reminded of Susan Jacoby, in her 2008 book “The Age of American Unreason,” stating words to the effect that at least 25% of Americans age 25-34 could not locate Iraq on a map with the names of countries printed on the countries. Regarding geography and maps, I don’t know how that can be made much more “accessible,” let alone “relevant.”
In my U.S. naval reserve unit it didn’t take many times hearing from others “Who cares?”, in response to my bringing up certain domestic and world news items, to prompt me to cease and desist from inviting attention to them. But, e.g., NFL draft pick season – bring it on!
+1
Disagree. Hmm well I see it as six of one vs. half a dozen of the other.
School boards and the like certainly wield power over curriculum and which kid goes to which school. The state could easily, if it chose, impose higher standards and requirements. But they don’t. So the “six of one” is that yes, you’re right, local school boards are often ‘what really counts’. But the “half a dozen of the other” is that it doesn’t have to be this way, and it wouldn’t require any institutional change or systemic change to make it otherwise. A change to higher standards that school boards couldn’t overrule is as simple (in principle) as a legislative bill…if we had the will to pass it.
Now as I talked about below, without the institutional support to back it, higher standards would likely just result in more failing kids. Implementing successful education with higher standards would require resources – we can’t do it with a wave of a legislative wand. But we can certainly do it (IMO)
If every parent voted on every issue, perhaps it would work better at knowing what the majority opinion is.
But it takes time and effort and commitment – depending on how things go, being a committed board member could cut into other obligations. The consequence is – I figure – the majority of parents simply hope common sense prevails and they can trust the boards. I think when details count though, one size does not fit all – and they do not get a vote, like if it was a presidential election.
I don’t think it’s as simple as this dichotomy. For example, I would say that the US’ institutional lack of public pre-K schooling results in the failure of some students to be as prepared as others when they get to primary school. And the issue of parental support is similarly related to the fact that parents unable to make a living wage at one job may be working 16 hours a day to support their families, while wealthier parents (like me) have the time to sit down with our kids and help them understand stuff. So there too, US institutional and social structures contribute to why some kids don’t learn as much.
I personally have not seen different standards applied to different races of kids. Nor ‘safe space’ logic being used to prevent the discussion of specific topics or books. But I do see low standards, and I think 90% of kids could easily master material at least a grade higher than what we teach now, if we could address our “institutional” problem of the lower and lower-middle classes’ inability to afford pre-K and (inability to…) make a decent living on a 40-hour-a-week job.
I couldn’t agree more with this. I think this is especially true in younger years, starting with birth. It is something that was glaringly obvious to me as a parent. Young kids really are sponges. Whatever you give them they soak it up and ask for more. There is much room for improvement on how we teach kids.
Of course, there is a wide range of learning capability among humans and that presents a very large challenge to overcome due to limited resources. But there is no question that even with the resources we currently have there is still some low hanging fruit to be picked. And of course we really need to devote more resources to this task, one of the highest potential ROI things a society can invest in, IMO.
Preaching to the choir here! My personal wish would include teaching the periodic table with the alphabet, symbolic logic in middle school and a heavy dose of science fiction literature as early as they’re inclined to read it.
I want to point out generally – not a laser blast at your particular suggestion, which I do of course like – that assuming – for K-12 schools in the United States – that more and more academics is a guaranteed panacea is a mistake. I never considered this before reading that Leonard Sax book I referred to above.
Sax argues that [1] K-12 education in the United States is NOT preparation for college – yes it is necessary, but it is not the _purpose_. Please see his book for the exact arguments. And [2] until the past few decades or so, public K-12 education in the U.S. taught what is generally regarded as *Fulghum’s rules. Steadily, more and more academics entered the schools – even in pre-school – and (Sax might argue) excluded the general Fulghum’s rules. Authority was eroded – specifically by teaching inadvertently that the smarts and intelligence of students themselves, personally, individually, were too important – “me me me”/”I I I”- to worry about basic conduct that is essential for effective academics – and above all, a fulfilling, resilient life – in the first place. “Kindness” I argue – becomes “why are people unkind to me by making me do things I don’t want to do”. Left in such a position, approval is sought from peers, from figures in the media – that naturally fill the authority vacuum.
Overemphasizing academics is, if I follow Sax’s arguments, treating kids like snowflake grown ups, which in the K-12 system, they largely are not. Parents are blindsided by this because they thought these are settled matters – sit still, behave, pay attention, be good. Learn cool stuff. Not so. Parents are left to back-track to fix it. It is very complicated. See the book – which isn’t perfect. I cut myself off now.
*Fulghum’s rules readers here know – yes, inspired by non-secular ideas – is found in this essay : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_I_Really_Need_to_Know_I_Learned_in_Kindergarten
I will check it out – and I’ll wait to respond properly to your thoughts until I have. I’m intrigued by the idea as you present it. My own approach as a parent has been not to treat kiddo as a grown-up, per se, but a small human who I am responsible to shepherding in a healthy and productive direction. There are things that need to be enforced (getting him to read was like pulling teeth, but, you need to be able to read to access the rest of the world of information, so tough luck kiddo). Other things I let be more self directed. Currently he’s on a PC/tech bender, and just built his own gaming PC (well, we’re waiting on finding a GPU, but it’s the last part). Previously, he was into stone carving. So- a mix of adult enforced educational minimums and child directed interest-based learning seems to be where I’m at.
“Primary school as college prep” was not really my point. My point is that the difference between a 3rd grader reading and doing math at a 4th grade level and one reading and doing math at a 3rd grade level seems primarily down to (a) teachers willing to teach it, (b) parental support for practicing it, and (c) language limitations (i.e. ESL issues). The kids I’ve known – and my kid goes to a school with something like 60% free lunch program, so this is not a wealthy area – all seem to be able to do it, if they have the teacher, parental support, and lessons in a language they can understand. Meaning biologically/intellectually they’re ready for it, they just need the adult support to learn it.
Sure, I can see that – James Simons’ Math for America foundation – as far as I understand – was designed to get mathematics educators who studied the subject for four years specifically into the United States public education system precisely because six-figure incomes are – apparently – more attractive to individuals with such credentials. Not that I, in my narrow experience, see the foundation supporting work anywhere except Brady Haran’s YouTube channel. And I can say it makes an enormous difference – your (a,b). (c) – I wonder about. but I am now in the realm of anecdote.
what am I writing all this for – isn’t this post is about something completely different?
I am writing all that because as I see it, a major object of interest in education is the authority vacuum – and The Elect, in my view – as drawn from writings on this general topic on this site – know it, are poised to claim it, and nobody else will – while parents will be further undermined, in the background of the whole project.
Sounds good to me!
A little thing I think is actually a pretty big thing is parents dumbing down their speech when talking to their very young children. Kids can learn multi-syllable words just as easily as single syllable words in my experience. It’s all just imitating the sounds their parents make and they’ve evolved to do that really, really well. They can learn “vagina” just as easily as “wee wee” or some other silly sound.
Re: “The achievement gap is evidence of institutional failure, not a failure on the part of Black test-takers.”
From the Fordham mission statement: “We believe that all schools that are supported with public funds—whether in the district, charter, or private school sector—should be held accountable for helping their students make academic progress from year to year.”
I’d like to hear Mr. Pondiscio and the Fordham Institute state for the record their positions on student personal responsibility. How about White test-takers, or Asian test-takers? Have test-takers of whatever skin hue not at least a few crumbs of personal responsibility/accountability? I think a statement about that should be in the Institute’s mission statement. One doesn’t expect all that much of kindergartners (although kindergarten teachers reasonably expect some prior minimal parental behavioral training). However, as students get older, they surely, and must necessarily, take on increasing personal responsibility for their education and behavior, in order to function as an adult. If Mr. Pondiscio and the Institute disagree, I’m all ears to hear why. Enough of this lament, “My teacher should have made me . . . .” Make yourself. Take some personal responsibility. It will be reasonably expected of you at the university level. (Or has that expectation gone by the wayside during the last decade or two due to what I perceive to be the increasing juvenilization of the university student?)
Re: today’s hard copy NY Times article lamenting the paucity of students of color not being selected for selective high schools, Stuyvescent and Bronx High School of Science, De Blasio wanting the tests eliminated and students rather selected from the top of their middle school classes. I take it that Mr. Pondiscio would prefer to keep the test.
Rather, the paucity being selected. (Re: the edit function)
… charter schools and Catholic schools have been successful in giving good educations to children who have grown up in poverty.
The same statement is true for public schools, and there are hundreds of studies which show charter, etc, schools are no more successful than public schools unless they practice selective enrollment.
“We do not give families of color and those in poverty the same range of options and quality of education that White and affluent families often take for granted…. Black, and Brown children who comprise, without exception, every student I’ve ever taught.”
So he’s never actually seen how the children of “White and affluent” families were educated, and therefore has no basis for comparison.
Nor has he seen how Asian children, for some mysterious reason, generally do quite well no matter what school they attend.
greatschools.org is an excellent resource.
I wouldn’t be so rash as to say “so he’s never actually seen how the children of ‘White and affluent’ families were educated. How do you know that?
Surely, teachers have exchanges with their peers from other schools, e.g., at professional meetings or in training settings?
I personally know very little about charter schools, but ‘selective enrollment’ is one thing I’ve heard about before from a rather disgruntled public school teacher. What she claimed was that some charter schools control who they admit to their school, only accepting students who are high achievers on tests. Then they turn around and say: ‘See? our students perform well above public schools!’
I’ve come to be convinced that the most important factor of all in what constitutes a “good school” is not the teachers nor the amount of funding nor the curriculum:
Rather, it is the culture of the kids’ peer group.
Of course teachers do influence that, as do parents, and wider society. But there’s only so much that a school can do, given a particular intake.
Selective schools do well, not primarily from better teachers or funding, but because they can curate that peer-group culture by picking the intake. And where schools dominated by kids from one minority group tend to relatively well (e.g. schools with a large fraction of Asian American kids) it is primarily because of that peer-group culture.
“[…] the most important factor of all in what constitutes a “good school” […] is the culture of the kids’ peer group.”
It is not clear if that is meant to be across all schools everywhere in the world. The film Waiting For Superman suggests this is important, and I agree. But it cannot be the most important. I don’t know how anyone would know the most important factor. The whole project is so complicated – with so many significant factors under control if different entities, it is almost a miracle any of it works, really, beyond being a rite of passage into a big “whatever”.
I am drawing from general audience literature titles, including :
“The Collapse of Parenting – How We Hurt Our Kids When We Treat Them Like Grown-Ups” – Leonard Sax, MD, PhD
“The Smartest Kids in the World – and How They Got That Way” – Amanda Ripley
I meant comparing schools in the same nation or the same region of a nation. So the difference between “good” schools and “bad” schools in the state of New York is primarily the culture of the kids’ peer group.
Any literature, links, or detail that give an idea of this notion?
This is an interesting idea. My personal anecdata comes from attending four different high schools. The first was exceptional. It was an international school – passionate, talented teachers, a nice small class size, and a culture of academic excellence among the students. All the cool kids did MUN, had straight ‘A’s’ and were planning on attending top notch universities. Obviously this was a very diverse school as well. I was the only mother-tongue English speaker one year. School two was a large public school near a military base. This one was mixed, depending on who you hung around you could find high achievers or low. This school had okay teachers, but I don’t really remember any of them. Except for the unfortunately named counselor, Dick Butts. School three was a brand new public school in an affluent neighborhood. The kids there had money, excelled in sports and got good grades. This was not a diverse school. The teachers, again, were young, passionate and talented. School four was a public school in a rural city. It looked like a prison. The kids did a lot of ag related activities. Many of the students came from low income households. There was a very cool punk band member in my Careers class. The grades were not great.
–
So, I think that money and advantage help cultivate a culture of academic excellence in kids, because they are expected to go far. Excellent, passionate teachers help.
Yes, class divisions (social/economic, not school classes) is a major factor.
Kenneth ClarK, (black) sociologist : Attending classes in New York City schools, he was held to the same high standards as his mostly white fellow students. He told New Yorker magazine many years later, “When I went to the board in Mr. Ruprecht’s algebra class, … I had to do those equations, and if I wasn’t able to do them he wanted to find out why. He didn’t expect any less of me because I was black.” Clark graduated from high school in 1931.
He later wrote about the harm caused by subsequent lowering of standards for poor black children by educators with reasoning similar to that of Mr. Kendi.
That teacher looks like she is a reader/commentator at Friendly Atheist or Pharyngula.
The swivel-eyes, the incomprehension that someone has a different opinion, the bluster, …she was only a few seconds away from pointing at him and screaming open-mouthed.
These True Believers exhibit all the signs of being in a cult. Thing is, how much damage will they do before they are stopped?
I have to ask – what photo is this referring to – not that a photo is meaningful as an argument, but perhaps as an eye-catching feature of an article looking for those precious clicks…
We’ll see won’t we? But I fear it’ll be quite a lot of damage. And the blowback against the Woke won’t land on the desks of tenured trendy academics in a struggle session…. it’ll land on the doorsteps of the minorities the movement (Kendi/Di-Angelo, etc) CLAIM to represent.
What an f’ng disaster.
D.A.
NYC
(lifelong leftie, volunteer and worker for Hillary Clinton Campaign, NYC)
The educability of children has been very widely underestimated by conventional educrats. One example, tangentially related to the topic under discussion, is in the field of special education. A
generation ago, it was conventionally assumed that Down Syndrome children could not become literate.
My DS son Aaron was fortunate to participate in an innovative, early education program of the Experimental Education unit of the University of Washington in the 1970s. There, Aaron was taught to read and write between ages 3 and 5—earlier than “normal” children. He is still, many years later, a crack player of Scrabble and Scrabble-like games, which he enjoys enormously, and he routinely reads placards, menus, movie and music advertisements, and similar media. Two of his classmates, from Latino families, became literate to some degree in both English and Spanish. The program, something of a breakthrough in special education circles, was later described in “Teaching Reading to Children With Down Syndrome: A Guide for Parents and Teachers (Topics in Down Syndrome)” (Paperback) by Patricia Logan Oelwein .
An excellent post – and Pondiscio’s article is well argued.
Slightly off topic, but Pondiscio mentions Paul Rossi, whom our host posted a piece about a couple of weeks ago. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/04/13/another-educator-risks-his-job-by-objecting-to-mandatory-and-ideologically-narrow-diversity-training/ Having emailed Rossi a message of support, last week I got a very nice reply from him in which he said,
I certainly hope that he is right about that.
I agree with Pondiscio – it is bewildering and upsetting that it is from “our” -liberal, progressive side (with whom we can claim common ideology with Martin Luther King, Jr.,) that these very same liberal, open values are under such siege.
Forget the Christ clapper rightests They’re a joke.
Remember though … ( as I see it ) that the Kendi/DiAngelo axis with their decisive garbage is touted by a small minority of self serving activists. For great profit, btw. … NOT the majority of whites/ blacks/ humans. It is a noisy minority using emotional blackmail to corner and shake down the ethics of decent leftists like my/our self/ves.
Just my opinion,
D.A.
NYC