Rush to relevance: Conducting research to improve policy and practice

“We need research to be more relevant” is a common clarion call in education. Most recently, John Easton, Director of IES, released a video for AERA in which he talks about different initiatives to improve relevancy.

During one of my first Ph.D. courses, Bill asked us about the three major responsibilities of academics: research, teaching, and service. In particular, he wondered about teaching, something that is too often overlooked at prestigious universities. As someone who just left the high school classroom, I boldly proclaimed—in a way only a first-year Ph.D. can—that all professors should be required to teach, and to teach well. Students pay a lot of money and deserve more than someone who views teaching as a chore to be completed before doing important work. As Bill pointed out then, and I have thought about since, academics have different skill sets. Some are unbelievably talented teachers, others researchers. Let’s propose the best possible scenario: Young scholars receive effective mentorship and professional development and work at universities that support and reward teaching and learning. Even then, some will never be effective teachers. What’s my point? Bold proclamations often fail to account for important nuances.

Just as I wanted all celebrity researchers to be all-star teachers, I think, at a certain level, all research should be relevant. But, the rush to relevancy has a few troubling side effects. First, it ignores the value of various forms of research. A new set of guidelines illustrates the types of methodologies—namely experimental and quasi-experimental—that IES favors (and funds) to produce relevant research. Large-scale, experimental studies are important. If I want to understand how growing up in a low-income neighborhood effects social mobility, neighborhood effects studies provide compelling, significant findings. What else do they provide? A lot of unanswered questions. The Moving to Opportunity (MTO) study, funded by HUD in the 1990s, was an innovative randomized experiment. Researchers sought to understand what happened to low-income families when they received housing vouchers. Scholars are still arguing about the study’s effects on variables like educational achievement, employment, and health. Even the best studies fail to capture the complex and dynamic social processes at work in low-income neighborhoods. While a life history of one or an ethnography of sixty may not generalize, they can provide valuable findings. Understanding social issues requires sophisticated, complimentary methodologies.

Second, the rush to relevance may diminish academic freedom. Foundations and think tanks like and support trendy issues. Schools of education like grant funding. Inevitably, these factors lead to subtle (or not-so-subtle) nudges to Ph.D. students and early career faculty: “Yes, you are free to study whatever you want, but we hope it will be relevant and also generate funding.” Considering fewer and fewer tenure-track positions, the pressures are magnified. Some scholars maintain balanced research portfolios, examining both mainstream and non-mainstream topics. But, even in those circumstances, we diminish the vibrancy of national debates by settling into familiar paths. 

Third, and related to the above point, relevance relies on ever-changing interests. Last year, we talked about MOOCs. This year, we are talking about Common Core. Too often, scholars sacrifice their own interests to pursue those of others. I want to be clear here: I am not arguing against forward-thinking scholars or the study of emerging, innovative issues. Rather, policy windows open and close quickly. Thinking of the most pressing, deeply rooted issues in education, neither scholarship nor meaningful reform benefit from that same hectic agenda. Instead of racing to relevance and the allure of fame and funding, researchers ought to use their own experiences and expertise to help define what is and is not important.

What’s trending?

Red Hook rests in South Brooklyn. Water surrounds two sides. The Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, which fences in the landlocked side, serves as a looming reminder of separation. Cut off from the subway, the neighborhood feels unlike other Brooklyn neighborhoods where gentrification and redevelopment rule. One business owner said, “People love living here. We don’t have a lot of transportation options and that’s part of the reason we have a strong neighborhood.” 

The neighborhood contains the largest housing projects in Brooklyn. Karima, a precocious 17-year-old, travels over an hour to get to her prestigious high school. Having to take bus to the subway, she transfers three times. “It’s the worst in the winter,” she says, “I leave when it’s still dark. It’s so cold.” 

I have spent quite a bit of time in Red Hook. Residents seem to want the same types of things: access to quality healthcare, jobs, and education. 

---

Common Core standards. NCLB waivers. Competency-based learning. College and career readiness. College ratings. STEM.

The stories of the young men and women who allow me to document their lives remind me of how disconnected education reform often is from the underserved and under resourced communities it often purports to help.

Similar to policy reforms, we need to nurture a balanced portfolio of short- and long-term goals, improving foundations and innovations.

Education 2012: Will politicians make campaign promises that matter?

“Yes, we can,” exclaimed Senator Barack Obama after winning the presidential primary in South Carolina nearly four years ago. The slogan signified hope and change for a country that desperately needed it. By alluding to Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, it also hinted at a promising new future for the working class and working poor, particularly among Latinos and African Americans. 

Four years later, the national tenor has changed. Obama—with little help from Congress—has been unable to translate rhetoric into practice and, sometime during the last four years, hope has given way to prostrate frustration. The Great Recession has not gone away. Unemployment and poverty have risen. We now have the Tea Party and Occupy movements. Both seem like something more than fads. And, as Republic candidates stump across the nation, President Obama’s two promises—hope and change—have become punching bags. 

What about the state of education over the past four years? Although President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have had some successes, the failures have mounted, especially in the last year. Both Race to the Top and Promise Neighborhoods have offered glimpses of innovation; however, budget cuts have threatened both initiatives. Despite asserting more control over education policy than any other administration, Obama has not reauthorized No Child Left Behind. Moreover, incremental reforms like value-added evaluations, national standards, and school choice have dominated policy discussions while foundational issues like the lack of educational funding, link between poverty and education, and need to innovate the pre-K-16 pipeline remain unresolved and under-discussed. Until policymakers address the critical issues, educational inequality will continue to increase.

Politicians are especially vague about educational issues. As Tyack and Cuban point out in Tinkering toward Utopia, the reason has to due with the similarities between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Since everyone agrees that better education is important, there is little political incentive to stray from the status quo. From Clinton to Bush to Obama, education reform has sounded remarkably different but looked remarkably similar. 

Where does that leave education in the coming year? Ron Paul wants to nix the Department of Education. Newt Gingrich wants to replace janitors with students. And, Rick Santorum wants to include creationism in the curriculum. However, aside from a few outliers, the candidates vary little. Mitt Romney, the most likely to win the Republican nomination, is nearly identical to Obama regarding education. 

Accountability ought to be shared. It’s time to ask more of President Obama and the Republican Candidates. If education is the engine that drives economic prosperity and social equality, then it is fair to ask politicians to provide an instruction manual. By now, everyone knows we need 21st century learners and schools to support them. Unfortunately, that sort of talk rarely leads to tangible results like percentage increases in graduation and college-going rates. How will the presidential candidates improve education over the short- and long-term? What concrete steps will they take to provide equitable education for all students? These are the questions to answer and the promises to make.

Twitter as the public sphere or a daytime talk show?

Is Twitter a new version of the public sphere? That is the question I posed last week.

Let me revisit the three basic criteria for the public sphere:

•     First, participants treat others as equal;  
•     Second, participants agree to discuss and question issues related to the common good;
•     And third, everyone participates.

Considering the criteria, how are academics actually using Twitter?

I follow hundreds of professors from around the country. The users I most appreciate are the ones who post new articles and blogs as well as mention events and conferences. The social media provides a great venue to link content. It also changes the pace of academia. No longer do we have to wait days for feedback or years for articles to go through the publication process.

Twitter also presents opportunities to connect and converse with academics across the country. These exchanges most closely resemble Twitter as a public sphere even if they do not fulfill all of the criteria.

But, sometimes the tweeting habits of individuals, including professors and teachers, assume less professional tones. I have read long, heated, and scandalous exchanges of 140 characters or less between esteemed professors. A few weeks ago, during an organized conversation when participants all used the same hashtag, I viewed an academic conversation about school choice degenerate to a personal attack about the professional associations of one of the well-known participants. These are not only issues of etiquette but also the ultimate goals of social media use as they pertain to education. 

Current uses of Twitter do not seem to indicate it is an emerging public sphere. So, after two blogs, what is the point? 

Academia is changing and so is technology. My goal is not to tell you how to use social media. At one level, because the line between the personal and professional is blurred, I think we could all benefit from a few more conversations about standards and practices. At another level, from fomenting revolutions in Egypt to spreading the latest Internet memes, the value of Twitter to discuss and diffuse ideas is clear. I wonder if using the social media to take potshots at colleagues is a missed opportunity to spread innovative ideas and genuinely improve education.

Twitter as a public sphere?

I.

Over the next month, I am going to discuss issues pertaining to education as a public good. The purpose—or purposes—of education has become a polarizing issue (for an introduction to this topic, see David Labaree’s “Public Goods, Private Goods”). Some argue for education to improve democracy; others argue for education to improve the economy. An individual’s opinions about the purposes of education often shape his or her thoughts regarding educational issues such as school choice, standardized assessments, common standards, and Race to the Top.

Because my views rarely fit either / or categorizations, I am going to state some of my basic assumptions upfront. 

• First, we ought to strive for education as a global public good. That is—even though education as a public good is imperfect in its current form, and possibly any form—quality education available to everyone worldwide ought to be our principal goal. 
• Second, education fulfills individual and communal interests at the same time. In other words, a college education may help an individual become socially mobile and democratically inclined. 
• And third, while education ought to be available to everyone, the shape of education (i.e. curricula, testing, schooling options, etc.) ought to be publicly deliberated to meet local needs and interests. As such, forums for discussion are essential. This last point brings me to the idea of the public sphere.

II.

For those unfamiliar with the origins of the public sphere, the most popular treatment of the concept occurs in Jürgen Habermas’s The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. He provides three criteria:

•     Everybody treats everybody as equal. Social status is irrelevant. 
•     The participants agree to discuss and question issues related to the common good. 
•     The forum is all-inclusive. 

The public sphere is situated within Habermas’s larger interest in communicative rationality, the idea that we may achieve mutual understanding through discussion. 

Where does the public sphere occur in contemporary society? Options range from community meetings and parent-teacher associations to newspapers columns, television shows, and radio stations. Opportunities for public discourse are key. However, considering the above criteria, each of the options contains shortcomings. The reason pertains to the core of the concept. As Nancy Fraser points out, the idea of the public sphere itself is fraught with problems, including issues of bracketing social differences, providing equal access, and ignoring subaltern counterpublics. 

Nevertheless, I have recently heard academics suggest Twitter as a new public sphere. The social media, they argue, is our 21st century version of the 18th century coffee house or salon. I understand the allure of social media as a public sphere, but I am not convinced.

So, what do you think? Is the increasingly popular social media a new public sphere?

Next week, I will discuss my thoughts regarding the promise and peril of 140 characters or less.

No culture left behind: Moving from intelligence to competence, Part II

Last week, I discussed the difference between deficit and surplus perspectives in education. A surplus of cultures exists in many low-income neighborhoods. And yet, current research, policy, and practice often assume a deficit perspective. 

I argued, instead, that scholars, policymakers, and practitioners ought to consider a surplus perspective. Such a perspective refocuses discussions from what African American and Latino teenagers lack to how the educational system can better leverage extant strengths. It also facilitates a discussion of the types of cultural competencies that the educational system does and does not value. Shifting the discussion from intelligence and innate ability to cultural competencies is an important step to acknowledging the potential of all students.

Today, I would like to provide an example of what I mean by cultural competencies:

Chuck is one of the young men with whom I have had the privilege of working and mentoring throughout my dissertation. He likes to draw, skateboard, and dance. He excels at all three. 

Capitalizing on his networking skills, Chuck forms skateboard and dance groups. One group is named Movable Parts; they use the name to distinguish themselves on YouTube in particular and in media in general. The group is known for “jerkin’,” a style of street dancing. He says, “I taught myself and I watch videos like YouTube that I made, and I enhance my dance moves. I danced on MTV and BET before, and I had little gigs with Snoop Dog and stuff.” 

Chuck parlays YouTube hits into dancing sponsorships in order to receive free clothing. In one video, he competes against a friend. The person who posted the video wrote, “One of the best jerk battles around…Vote or Die…LOL.” The video lasts for seven minutes. The two, who exchange dance moves, perform the battle on a sidewalk in front of a concrete wall decorated with graffiti. After the first exchange, a bell rings and “Round Two” flashes across the screen. A song by two local musicians begins playing. Chuck begins. At the end of his turn, he tosses an imaginary ball in the air and hits it with an imaginary bat. Homerun.

The video receives over 105,122 views and 393 comments. The majority of viewers select Chuck. One writes, “Chuck all day.” Another posts, “Chuck kid go hrd.”

Chuck is example of this sort of creative and entrepreneurial competencies that are not recognized in school. He also has a 1.7 grade point average. When I first met him, Chuck wanted to attend San Jose State, major in fine arts, and join the “Dirty Brushes,” an art club. However, I soon learned that he is ineligible to attend a Cal State or UC because of his poor grades. He will most likely have to go to Santa Monica College for a year and then transfer.

How is it possible that an educational system has failed to capitalize on such obvious talents? Chuck is one of the most creative individuals I have ever met. And yet, by conventional educational measures, he does not qualify to attend a Cal State.

If we are to address the gross inequalities occurring in schools today, it is time to acknowledge the cultural mismatch between the competencies students possess and what the educational system values.

Race, research, and justice: Why Trayvon Martin matters to me

Some of my most vivid memories as a high school teacher are of police. Police cars patrolled the neighborhood. They parked in front of the school and at nearby intersections. In school, police officers walked the hallways. Out of school, they walked the streets. 

Police were ever-present in the neighborhood. That is the context in which my students lived. What does it do to a teenager to be under constant surveillance? What effect does being guilty until proven innocent have on a human being? 

As a teacher and researcher, I have been fortunate to interact with thousands of amazing African American and Latino/a men and women. As a result, my life has been have enriched beyond measure. My experiences have also allowed me to address my own biases and stereotypes and question how I have benefited from white privilege and how I reproduce it. After all, growing up in a suburb of Washington D.C., rarely did I see a police car patrolling my neighborhood.

I am a white male who conducts research with African American and Latino teenagers. That is not a footnote to what I do; it is the topic sentence. Certainly, in terms of trustworthiness of research, I have to consider how my race, class, gender, and age affect the data I gather. Does a 17-year-old black male respond differently to me than someone of a different race or class? 

Considering the research that I produce, I have a social responsibility to ensure that my interpretations and representations do not perpetuate stereotypes or injustices. How is what I write different than, what Robin D. G. Kelley calls, the “ghetto ethnographies” of the 1960s?

These are not incidental questions and, given the history of race relations in the United States, they are important to ask and answer, even if asking is uncomfortable and the answers are unclear.

I write today as someone who mourns the loss of Trayvon Martin and hopes his family finds peace. 

I write because race relations in the United States are complicated, and we need to talk about them more often, more candidly, and more respectfully. 

I write because Trayvon reminds me of my own brother, who was shot and murdered a week after his sixteenth birthday. Due to a lack of evidence, the police never apprehended the murderer even though most knew who committed the act. No other event has influenced my life more. Everyday, I wonder what David thought about during his last moments and, as my graduation and wedding approach, I miss him even more. 

Finally, I write because, unlike Trayvon Martin, my brother was presumed innocent. 

Why, even in death, do select groups including the media continue the prejudiced criminalization of African American males?

Justice for Trayvon

Governor Brown sends the wrong message about education

Last week, Governor Jerry Brown described his 2012 budget proposal, which included a $5.2 billion cut in education if voters do not approve a tax increase on the ballot this November. Of the total, Brown plans to cut $4.8 billion in K-12 public school funding—the equivalent of three weeks of schooling—and $200 million to the University of California and Cal State systems. Although the cuts are only an option, Governor Brown is sending the wrong message about education.

In a previous blog, I discussed the relationship between funding and the achievement gap. Scholars and politicians used to frame spending debates around the relationship between money and achievement. The conclusion was that spending does not always equal gains. The results illustrated the need to focus on processes, along with inputs (money) and outputs (achievement). The entire argument, however, presupposed that governments would provide enough money for districts and schools to operate. 

Governor Brown’s proposed cuts highlight an alarming trend in education—the unwillingness to fund education even after all agree that it is essential to the present and future success of the nation. Even taking into consideration spending during the “new normal,” these cuts are shocking. Education in California is already under-funded, and many districts are in fiscal disrepair. The possibility of more cuts places districts in a precarious position. As Superintendent John Deasy points out, Los Angeles Unified has to plan for money that does not exist and decide whether or not to cut a number of programs.

Skeptics point to over a century of unsuccessful reforms as evidence of the futility of government spending on education. Why put money into a system that perpetually underachieves? This perspective, however, ignores important contextual factors like urban poverty and access to social services. Of all industrialized countries, the United States has the highest percentage of children in poverty and provides the fewest social supports, e.g. housing, health-care, and child-care assistance. Similarly, arguments against government spending ignore the recent successes of countries across the globe. A recent article in The Atlantic describes the successes of Finland as educators focus on equity, not test scores. In The Flat World and Education, Linda Darling-Hammond chronicles the turnarounds of Finland, South Korea, and Singapore. What is the common denominator? All three countries’ governments committed to spending money to improve education.

When will education become a priority in California?

Giving thanks now and in the future

Now is the time to give thanks. I am thankful for having good health, professional successes, and old and new friends and family. When I consider major trends in education, however, giving thanks is more difficult.  Don’t get me wrong: There are people and events for which to be thankful. This year, Governor Brown signed legislation that will allow undocumented students to receive financial aid for college. The Dream Act will absolutely change the lives of many teenagers. In addition, there are numerous examples of hugely successful students, teachers, and schools at every level across the country. Those are important facts and reasons to give thanks. 

And yet, we cannot ignore the realities of our current educational system. Consider a few facts about Los Angeles:

• One-third of all Black and Latino children are poor and, as a result, less likely to have positive health and educational outcomes.
• In Los Angeles Unified School District, nearly three out of every ten Black and Latino students drop out of high school.
• Of the Black and Latino students who do graduate, only four out of ten enroll in college.

Education provides a pathway to social mobility. Unfortunately, millions of children encounter immense barriers. In particular, the 60 young men who are participating in research for my dissertation shape my thoughts during this holiday season. What reforms may have helped them succeed in high school and matriculate to college? I suggest five:

• First, neighborhood-based reforms like Promise and Choice Neighborhoods in order to alleviate poverty and provide improved job opportunities, healthcare, and access to social services for families. 
• Second, extended school days and more after-school activities in order to increase learning opportunities and social networks.
• Third, university-created mentoring and enrichment programs starting with at-risk middle school students in order to increase high school retention and college access.
• Fourth, thoughtful and well-executed uses of technology in order to provide access to information. Starbucks provides free Wi-Fi to coffee drinkers. Why don’t all high schools provide free access to students? 
• Fifth, a standard, simplified college application process and automatic enrollment pathways in order to increase access.

These are a few of the reforms that could improve educational and life outcomes, particularly for students in low-income neighborhoods. What changes do you want to occur? 

I wish every one a happy holiday. Now is the time to give thanks, but also plan for more thanks in the future.

Sources

Blackwell, A. G., & Pastor, M. (2010). Let's hear it for the boys: Building a stronger America by investing in young men and boys of color. In C. Edley & J. R. d. Velasco (Eds.), Changing places: How communities will improve the health of boys of color (pp. 3-33). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_Consequences_of_Neglect.pdf

Using social Media to improve learning

Last week, I discussed the use of social media to collect data and improve trustworthiness. In this blog, I talk about the benefits and pitfalls of social media to improve learning. 

I want to begin with a few underlying assumptions: First, standing still is not an appropriate strategy to improve underperforming schools and districts. The world is moving faster than ever. A trademark of successful schools is not only the ability to manage the massive challenges of day-to-day operations but also anticipate and embrace educational innovation, including technology. 

Second, schools in general and learning in particular are changing. Brick and mortar schools become less important every day. This is both good and bad news. The open source movement has the potential to democratize knowledge. Even students attending the worst schools will have access. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the most underperforming schools will most likely be the last to adopt digital learning and teach the skills necessary to capitalize on digital learning opportunities. Just as we have seen with charter schools, unequal implementation will lead to uneven opportunity. Counter to the hope of the movement, the participation gap may exacerbate the achievement gap. 

Education is changing, and that leads to uncertainty. School administrators have responded by prohibiting social media use in schools and establishing guidelines for use outside of schools. Reasons include the need to govern access to inappropriate content and guard against inappropriate interactions between teachers and student. I view these responses as shortsighted. Rather than dealing with social media, administrators are ignoring it. S. Craig Watkins recently discussed the problems with current technology use policies. Most importantly, the hardline stances illustrate the growing divide between how people interact and learn outside of school and what they do inside of school. 

Education is changing. Schools that incorporate blended learning like USC’s Hybrid High, School of the Future, and High Tech High are setting the standard for educational innovation. Informed uses of technology have the ability to improve access to and facilitate learning for all students. However, school administrators and teachers must first have the courage to embrace change. The transition will not go smoothly and will include failures. Sometimes, though, the reward is worth the risk. Besides, what’s the alternative? Stand pat? Defend the status quo? As far as I can tell, change is the only option.

The first three hours after school

After the last school bell rings, teenagers have a variety of options to occupy their time. The number of options multiplies due to several factors. First, older age correlates to increased freedom. In addition, parents or guardians are likely to work after school lets out. Second, in urban neighborhoods, teenagers have access to a variety of locations. Friends’ houses, parks, fast food restaurants, and public transit are all within walking distance. Teens are not dependent on rides from parents or older siblings.

From participating in after-school activities to hanging out with friends, what teens do and the people with whom they interact either reinforce or detract from college access. Meaningful after-school activities provide extended learning opportunities and engender college-going behaviors. That knowledge and those behaviors even extend to informal activities such as playing basketball or eating at a fast food restaurant with friends. During those times, teens discuss a range of issues including choosing and paying for college. In contrast, informal activities such as gangbanging or doing drugs have the ability to derail college access. Poor choices out of school lead to poor grades in school. Not only are the teens participating in illicit activities, the conversations differ starkly from those of their more academically engaged teens. 

President Obama is sounding the alarm for increased postsecondary opportunities. At the same time, district administrators are making tough choices. Those choices include which programs to fund and which positions to staff. Unfortunately, after-school activities are often the first to go. The reasoning goes something like, “We have to focus on the core, not the periphery. An after-school college prep program is nice, but it won’t improve test scores.” That reasoning ignores the value of after-school programs, which provide supervision, mentorship, and extended learning opportunities.

If we want to improve college access, it’s time to focus on the first three hours after school.