A Knee on All Our Necks

My son Peter Anderson posted this on Facebook today. 

“You’d better not be lying to me, young man. If you’re lying, and our dogs catch a whiff of your scent, they’ll track you down and chew you up real good.”

That is a snippet from the first real world interaction I remember having with a police officer. I was fourteen years old, walking through an unfamiliar neighborhood to meet up with a friend, when two police cruisers turned the corner and hemmed me in. After shining his flashlight directly in my face and shouting at me to keep my hands where he could see them, the officer in the driver’s seat of the closest car started interrogating me about who I was, where I was from, and where I was going. He and his partners were on the hunt for two car theft suspects, and according to them I “fit the description”. After thorough questioning they let me go about my business, but not before leaving me with that gem about what might happen if the canines caught my scent.

The next time I “fit the description” was about eight years later. I was waiting at a bus stop on my way to the low wage retail job I was working to get by during the 2008 recession. Just as the bus arrived and I got in line to get on, a police officer approached and instructed me to step out of the line so he could ask me a few questions. He had that puffed chest, carrying heavy suitcases look of a man who enjoys his authority a bit too much. He asked for my ID and made a big show of examining it thoroughly, peppered me with questions about where I was coming from and where I was going (despite the fact that I was clearly wearing a retail work uniform and catching a bus during a typical commute time), and kept the bus waiting on me for more than five minutes, with nearly all the passengers gawking at me through the windows. He explained to me that he was on the lookout for a burglary suspect and that he stopped me because I “fit the description”. He told me I was free to go, sans apology of course, and I got on the bus to enjoy the awkward experience of an entire busload of eyeballs on me as I made my way to my seat.

Those interactions with the police are seared into my memory, but I think they’ve had less of an impact on me than the cumulative psychological effects of the less memorable, micro-indignities I’ve experienced throughout my life: Being greeted with a fist bump by older white men who had greeted their white counterparts with a normal handshake just moments earlier; being called “Tyrone” by random drunken college kids; overhearing white guys who I thought were my friends casually drop the word “nigger” after getting a few too many drinks in them...as if a bottle of tequila were a time warp back to 1940; meeting the father of a girl I dated in college who barely bothered to hide his displeasure at his daughter dating a black guy. The list goes on, but I think you get the point.

Most people who know me have never heard me tell those stories before. Mostly for philosophical reasons - I’ve long felt strongly that perpetuating a victimhood complex is not the path to empowerment for black Americans. This has gotten me into some spirited debates with friends of mine, and it’s the reason I’ve often been critical of Ta-Nehisi Coates and some elements of the BLM movement. But the murder of George Floyd has created a shift in consciousness that seems to demand that black men and women share their experiences of racism with those who up to this point may have only had a vague, intellectual understanding of what it means to be black in America. The image of a white man dressed in the uniform of institutional power with his knee against the neck of a defenseless and shackled black man isn’t just an atrocity caught on camera - it’s a symbol of a greater truth: that racism isn’t just a concept to be “woke” to...it’s a physical reality that has defined the black experience since our nation’s inception. We were born with a knee on our necks.

I now feel that this is the moment to pull back the curtain on that reality as far as possible. Not to shame white people or demand that they confront their “white privilege” (a term that has always sounded a bit too much like “original sin” for my taste), but to make human civilization better by sharing our burdens. Because a burden shared is a burden lifted...and with that burden lifted from our necks, we might one day find it easier to breathe.

Real Estate and Inequality

My nephew Andrew McLane wrote this June 2 on Facebook after the weekend of protests following George Floyd's murder by police.

I don’t normally post on social media, but the events of the past week have catalysed an anger deep inside me that I cannot ignore and feel compelled to share. So here is some of what has been on my mind these past few days:

We all know and say that this country’s original sin was slavery. This is undisputed. However, I want to share another insidious sin this country committed around 75 years ago, a sin whose rotten fruits we are harvesting today and will continue to for some time.

During World War 2, before we declared victory in Europe and the Pacific, our federal government passed the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944, which most know now as the GI Bill. This bill was designed to ensure that American soldiers would be guaranteed a prosperous life after they returned from the war. One of the most crucial components of the GI Bill was providing servicemen the option to obtain a low-interest, low- or no-down payment 30 year mortgage to buy one of the hundreds of thousands of new, suburban houses being built around the country. Just seven years after the war, 2.4 million of these loans had been made to veterans.

Sounds good, right? Well, this program had one massive, gaping hole in it: these home loans weren’t issued by the government directly. Instead, they were backed by the government, but issued by private lenders. Since this is the 40s and the 50s, hundreds of thousands of black veterans, who had answered the call of duty in the face of fascism and tyranny, were denied these loans by white-run financial institutions. The government that they had fought and spilled blood for didn’t implement protections from racial discrimination, and this was by design to appease Southern Democrats in order to convince them to vote for it.

In addition to our government not looking out for its black veterans in regards to obtaining home loans, it would take Uncle Sam another 30 years from the passage of the first GI Bill to ban the practice of racial covenants. These covenants allowed suburban developers to bar all non-white people from buying property in new neighborhoods, and these restrictions would be passed on to all subsequent owners.

A black veteran returning from World War 2 would have to wait 24 years before he could go into a bank without fear of being legally denied a home loan on the basis of being black. If that wasn’t enough of an injustice, he would have to wait another six years before he could buy a house in any neighborhood without fear of being prevented in doing so on the basis of being black.

As many of you know, I’m a real estate broker. I get to help people through one of the biggest purchases of their lifetime, and all the brokers at my office are wonderful human beings. I got into this industry because it’s exciting, fascinating, and fun. But it wasn’t until after I became a real estate professional that I learned the full extent of this dark, racist history.

In the process of obtaining your real estate license, you’re given a brief history of housing and lending discrimination in the 20th century, and this usually transitions into the laws and ethics that real estate professionals must abide by in both marketing and business activity.

However, these lessons don't touch on why this history is important.

Today, the sum value of America’s residential real estate holdings is hovering around $33 trillion. The vast majority of that wealth has been created since the passing of the GI Bill and the massive expansion of new Levittown-style suburbs. Our government, through multiple and intentional actions, denied black people, black veterans, the ability to access this financial opportunity. To put this into further perspective, we are only one and a half standard length mortgages removed from that codified segregation.

Time and time again, black people have been denied their supposedly “constitutional” rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and real estate has been no different. If you come from a place of privilege like myself, think of it this way: If you’re my age and don’t own a home, think of all the wealth in your family. How much of that is in the form of your parent’s home, which will be passed on down to you? If you already own your own home, how much of your down payment was paid for by your parents? Or, if you make good money, how much of your college education, which allows you to make good money, was financed by your parent’s home equity? Like I said, Black Americans have only had one generation’s worth of unfettered access to that opportunity. The more I think about the implications of what this country has done, the more I am sickened by it.

Today, I see listings for homes in the Central District and the Rainier Valley, with specific descriptions that describe these neighborhoods. Every time I see an example of this I cringe, because whether the agent who wrote those words knew it or not, they are utilizing the same verbiage that white lenders used to racially classify neighborhoods all those decades ago. As you can see from this map, when the CD was all-black it was “definitely declining”, or “hazardous”. But now that white people have completely flipped the demographics of these same neighborhoods, agents can describe them as “up and coming”, or “trendy”, or even flat out using the word “desirable”, like the racially covenanted white neighborhoods were described at the time.

I don’t want any broker or lender that knows me to think that I’m directly blaming them, because I’m not. However, we as an industry need to realize this: it is absolutely imperative that we acknowledge and come to terms with our historic culpability in the plight that black Americans face today. It is absolutely imperative that we understand how our current conduct affects communities that suffered at the hands of institutionalized property segregation and racism. It is absolutely imperative that we ensure that we reform as an industry going forward, because as we all should know, THIS IS STILL HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

We all know the terms blockbusting, steering, and redlining, but what do we know about the effects these horrible acts have on the people of color that lived and still do live in the neighborhoods we serve? We need to do better. We can do better.

I didn’t join the protests this past weekend because of my health condition, but my anger has now surpassed my fear of getting COVID-19. I will be marching this week, for George Floyd, and I will be marching this week because #BlackLivesMatter. I hope to see you all there with me too.

Why FIRST Robotics?

This is my fourth and final year participating in robotics programs in the Everett School District. For personal reasons I have decided to end my role as co-advisor to Cascade Bruin Robotics, but I will always be a passionate believer in and promoter of FIRST and Washington FIRST Robotics. I hope others will, too.

FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) was founded in 1989 by inventor and entrepreneur Dean Kamen to provide students with a competitive experience that combines STEM with business, design, communication and organization. FIRST isn’t just about robots. Its programs are growing exponentially and expanding all over the world, and FIRST participants are eligible for significant scholarship opportunities.

The two abiding principles of FIRST are Coopertition and Gracious Professionalism. Coopertition “is displaying unqualified kindness and respect in the face of fierce competition.” Gracious professionalism means that robotics teams “learn and compete like crazy, but treat one another with respect and kindness.” Surely our students want to win. But winning isn’t everything and it isn’t the only thing. It is simply the icing on the cake. Dean Kamen calls FIRST a “varsity sport for the mind” and “the only sport where everyone can go pro.”

At our recent FRC competitions, FIRST Washington founder Kevin Ross exhorted the seniors to take their skills and values into the world, to college and beyond. During this presidential campaign I have been deeply  disheartened by the violent and hateful rhetoric and imagery by some candidates and their supporters. The students of FIRST give me hope for our future.

Imagine a world where our leaders are FIRST alumni who embrace gracious professionalism in every aspect of public life. Imagine a world where we win by helping to bring others up instead of down. That world could be a reality if we provide more opportunities for students in every school to join a FIRST Robotics team. We can all help. If you have time, volunteer as a team mentor (engineering skills not required). Make donations to your local robotics team. At the very least, if you are an Amazon shopper, use Amazon Smile and select FIRST Washington Robotics as your designated charity. FIRST. More than robots. Inspire the World!

Postscript: For another, better perspective on FIRST Robotics, please see this post: Top 10 Differences Between High School Sports and Robotics.

 

An Open Letter to Our Washington State Legislators

I am a high school physics teacher and robotics team mentor in the Everett School District. I know you are hearing from many teachers about the WEA position on school funding, class size, and teacher evaluation. Rather than simply repeat themes that others have probably expressed better, I would like to share with you a personal story about meeting a young woman with a degree in electrical engineering who is thinking about becoming a physics teacher.

When I hear an incredibly bright, passionate, motivated young woman express a desire to share that passion with younger students, I am of two minds. The heart that brought me to teaching has never forgotten the yearning for a journey of discovery shared with young, inquiring minds. I would like very much to encourage this young woman to go into teaching because our profession, our students, our society would benefit from her choice. But would she? How can I, in good conscience, encourage an intelligent, capable young woman to leave a highly paid STEM career track for a profession that is becoming increasingly deprofessionalized, for a job whose demands and dictates are driven by non-educators who presume they know better than teachers what is in the best interests of our students?

Our state has adopted the national narrative of failing schools and underperforming teachers, while refusing to address the systemic long term effects of underfunding both public education and the social safety net. There are too many articles that address both of these issues for me to cite them all, but belief in and response to ideas promoted by education “reformers” are addressed in this scholarly report by The Economic Policy Institute: Fact Challenged Policy by Richard Rothstein. Even if you buy into the notion that most schools are failures, starving them into greater failure hardly seems like a reasoned response, not to mention that it puts the legislature in contempt of the McCleary decision.

Our most grievous concern when it comes to the education of children should be the number of children in poverty. As a scientist, I rely on evidence and data, and the science is very clear that socioeconomic factors are the biggest predictor of academic success. The devastating effects of poverty are well documented in a recent study featured in Nature: Poverty shrinks brains from birth by Sara Reardon.

If you choose to dismiss my previous points by invoking the need for the NCLB waiver, I would respond by saying that many states have figured out it will cost them more to implement the tests and evaluations demanded by DoE than the states will receive in federal funding. The legality of the waivers are questionable at best and, I would argue, unconstitutional. But, since they apparently fit the “reform” agenda of both parties, they go unchallenged.

Integral to obtaining the waiver is an agreement that teacher evaluation be tied to student test scores. There have been many news reports describing how these methods have been poorly implemented in other states. There are many scholarly articles that raise scientific concerns about using test scores for evaluations. I provide one from the Economic Policy Institute: Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers by Richard Rothstein, et al.

Perhaps it may be more meaningful to end as I began, with a personal story. I believe in assessment as an important evaluative and diagnostic tool. I have for my entire career tracked student learning with pretests and post-tests. New technology makes it easier for me to compare students from one year to the next with similar or identical tests. Each year I have seen decreases in student motivation, increases in distractions due to electronic devices, and test performance is consequently worse. I am working as hard as I can to help students learn material late in the semester because they weren’t willing to keep up with the work when they were supposed to. I have become so disheartened by the attitude of so many who believe that if students do not do well in my class it is my fault. Elected officials and many in the media have become so disrespectful to teachers that I would be hard pressed to recommend this profession to anyone.

I hope that Washington State will not follow the path of other states that are destroying their public schools by using unscientific evaluation systems and diverting public funds to untested charter schools. Lastly, briefly, I will suggest that we begin to address long term funding shortfalls by implementing the Washington Investment Trust once championed by Senator Bob Hasegawa (see Washington State Joins Movement for Public Banking by Ellen Brown).

Kristine McLane Responds: Charter Schools

In response to my previous post Ten Reasons to Say No to Charter Schools, Kristine McLane, librarian and parent, offered this:

The parent/teacher trigger is one of  the most troubling parts of this flawed legislation. If 1240 passes, then any school in the state could become a charter school by petition of either parents or teachers. In this scenario, all local control over that school AND the building its housed in is gone. An approved charter operator could start to circulate a petition among, let's say, Shorewood High School teachers asking them to approve the conversion of the high school that my property taxes will be paying off for the next 20 years, and if 50 percent plus 1 of them sign the petition to convert, then Shoreline voters will have zero say in the operation of the new high school still under construction.  Shoreline parents and taxpayers would  have no say in any of the curriculum decisions, policy decisions, or building use decisions.  On top of that, the district taxpayers would be obligated to pay for all maintenance, utilities, etc., and to fork over any share of future levies that are approved. 

This initiative has very little to do with improving the educational opportunities for underserved or special needs kids and is simply a power and money grab by individuals and companies who see public education as a way to line their pockets.  All of the organizations that support the initiative are funded by Bill Gates and a few other wealthy individuals who stand to profit immensely if this initiative passes.  Rupert Murdoch has invested millions in companies that provide standardized testing services to schools.  We don't need to guess what side the WSJ comes down on when it comes to "holding teachers accountable" by looking at how well their student test scores improve.  If 1240 passes, you can bet money that the non-profit charter operators that are approved by Washington state will soon be signing multi-million dollar contracts with companies owned by Murdoch, Nick Hanauer, Gates, Allen, Broad, Walton, etc...

Please Vote NO on 1240 and preserve locally controlled public education in Washington State.

Ten Reasons to Say No to Charter Schools (No on I-1240)

1) Funding

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that the state has never fulfilled its paramount duty to fully fund public education. The charter schools initiative does not provide additional funding for new schools. It simply aims to siphon off per student funding to additional schools, leaving the schools that are already here even more desperately underfinanced. Those of us in education know how critical those first day counts are to get funding for the entire year. Sixty students under projected enrollment could mean a loss of two staff members. In states with charter schools, reporters have documented the practice of charters enrolling as many students as possible (in some cases teachers had caseloads well above 250 students).  Many of these students were weeded out very quickly after their funding was secured from the state. These students ended up in regular public schools that did not receive any funding for them.

2) Privatization

Although Initiative 1240 states that charter schools are public and nonprofit, there are no restrictions on school operators who wish to contract with private organizations for any and all services. In many other states, “public” charters are managed by CEOs who earn very high salaries (in some cases charter school managers have been paid well over a million dollars a year). High administrative fees lead to less money for students and teachers.

            I find myself dumbfounded that in the wake of a devastating financial crisis resulting from private market actions and deregulation there are many who still believe that the market will always do better than the government. There is a reason Rupert Murdoch is investing heavily in education and promoting education investment. I don’t think it’s because he cares about the achievement gap.

3) Teacher Turnover

Personal individual anecdotes aside, evidence clearly shows that experienced teachers are better for students, and novice teachers perform better with experienced mentors. I am a much better teacher now than I was in my first year, and the teachers I respect the most continue to improve their practice no matter how skilled and experienced they are now. Many charter schools experience very high teacher turnover for a variety of reasons, including poor working conditions and low salaries. Something we often forget amid the union bashing is that teaching conditions are learning conditions.

4) Inequity

Even with a lottery system, students whose parents are unaware of or unable to sign up for the lottery will not have the opportunity to be considered for a charter. The location of a charter school will limit the ability of some interested parents who will have scheduling or transportation challenges. The most disadvantaged students will get the least benefit from any changes in the school system.

5) Resegregation

In states where charter schools have been implemented, there is a clear trend toward racial as well as economic segregation. This nation fought a painful and bloody battle many years ago for civil rights and desegregation. While one can argue that we are already on the path to increased segregation in public schools, charter schools are hastening and facilitating this process. Some have argued for segregation as a way to help close the achievement gap. I have seen no studies that support this approach, and returning to the path of “separate but equal” should be fought at all costs.

6) Disrupting communities

The sad reality in our country is that the schools that struggle the most are in the communities with the greatest poverty. Neighborhood schools are often the cornerstones of these communities that are damaged by school turnaround models which dismantle schools and send students in different directions. The parent trigger component of the charter school initiative could create a similar dismantling of public schools. Rather than disrupt a community, why not support and nurture a school and its students on the path to improvement?

7) Accountability and Transparency

In many states, charter schools are not held to the same standards of accountability and transparency as public schools. I have read reports from other states (Florida is one example that comes to mind) where the legislators have actually passed laws to make it easier for well-heeled charter school boards to skirt some of the state auditing requirements, and in some states charter school test scores are not reported to the media or made available to the public.

8) Narrowing the Curriculum

If there is transparency in reporting, charter schools (along with many traditional public schools) prize high test scores above all else, and a significant amount of time is spent on prepping for tests in core subjects at the expense of music, art, shop classes, and similar electives. Many people call such classes enrichment; I think they are fundamental, and they are being lost at a phenomenal rate throughout the country.

9) Performance

If charter schools were consistently doing a better job than public schools as measured by high test scores, challenging and rewarding course options, high graduation and college acceptance rates, low student and teacher turnover, a diverse student population and no achievement gap, I think I would be a strong supporter of charters. The reality is that on average charter schools do no better and many do worse than the schools they are supposedly competing with, even though their student population is less diverse than that of nearby public schools. This has been documented in many studies. Charter school supporters will point to a few shining examples of successful charter schools while ignoring the far from stellar truth about the vast majority. 41 states now have charter schools. They have been operating in some states for decades. We have plenty of data to show that charter schools clearly have not delivered on their early vision and promise.

10) The Wrong Solution to the Wrong Problem

In order to decide if charter schools are the solution, we must first define the problem. One argument is that charter schools are needed because public schools are failing, and (in a free market mindset) charters will provide competition that will force public schools to improve. I have never read of any study anywhere that supports the market competition approach to improving public schools. Some schools are struggling for reasons that have more to do with factors outside the school environment. For more on this please see How about reform based on evidence and data?

            Another argument for charter schools is parental choice. If X number of dollars is attached to my child, shouldn’t I get to choose where that money is spent? If parental choice is the primary motivation for charter schools, then it makes more sense to give parents vouchers for schools (public or private) with a track record than to implement costly new schools that may not succeed. Vouchers are still problematic for many of the reasons already described. Public schools are part of the social contract and people with no school-age children pay taxes that support public schools. For more on this, please see 7 Reasons why public school dollars should stay with public school students.

Please vote No on I-1240.

Disclosure: I am not a journalist or a researcher, and my statements have not been footnoted. My views are based on hundreds of articles I have read over the years. If you would like to see some of these source articles you may find some of them here and here.

How about Education Reform Based on Evidence and Data?

When we discuss education reform, there is always an underlying assumption that public schools are deteriorating and teachers today are worse than they have ever been. This is simply not true. DoE and NAEP data show that black students today are performing better on many measures than white kids were in the 1980s. There is still an achievement gap because white students have improved as well. When we make international comparisons, our schools with a poverty rate of less than 10% outperform all schools except those in Shanghai, which doesn't release demographic data. When the PISA rankings were released, they were downplayed in China, and many Chinese education officials have come to America to see how we foster creativity and innovation. With the "reform" efforts now taking hold here, I wonder if in a few decades American officials will be making similar trips to China.

There is much animus directed at teachers and unions. We have heard many unflattering anecdotes of individual teachers that have had the unfortunate effect of tainting all. For each of these anecdotes there is often a story of a union charged with protecting those teachers at all costs to the detriment of students, parents, and schools. I am inclined to believe that the rest of the story in each case is not so simple. I would never support keeping an abusive and/or incompetent teacher in the classroom. It is up to administrators to do the work of removing these teachers, even as I support their due process. We cannot tarnish the reputations and motivations of all teachers because of the actions of a relative few.

Can educators improve? Of course - we improve with experience, with professional development, with supportive administrators and collaboration. I am concerned about the loss of collaboration if our test scores will be compared to the teacher next door. I am concerned about what happens to the evaluation of teachers who are especially gifted at working with special education students who struggle to perform on standardized assessments. I am concerned about a culture of test-taking that narrows the curriculum and stifles creativity and problem-solving, the true 21st century skills. I am especially concerned about the very unscientific and bizarre  value added measures used to rank teachers in New York City and the public humiliation and excoriation of many teachers that soon followed. (For more on this, please see the NEW YORK section on the Education Reform page. It may be important to keep in mind that this sort of practice is already taking place in several other cities.)

I am concerned about the soaring profits of testing companies who have always produced appalling question banks for tests (ask any teacher who has had to create their own tests because the textbook exams were so poor). I am concerned that we are implementing significant changes to education (narrow standardized testing, value added measures, charter schools) that have not been demonstrated to consistently improve teacher effectiveness or student achievement (and in fact many studies have shown all of these changes to be more detrimental than helpful). The amount of instructional time lost to standardized testing is significant. For students who care, the stress of testing can be destructive. Students who don't care can have a devastating effect on the process for those who do. For example, a middle school teacher told me about a student who deliberately disrupted the testing environment. He knew that low test scores would be inconsequential to him but would reflect negatively on the teacher and school. If a teacher's job depends on test scores, this sort of malicious sport will be elevated to high art.
 

I am concerned that we are doing exactly the opposite of what Finland - a PISA success story - is doing. Finland invests in the basic needs of its children, has great respect for its teachers and pays them extremely well. They do not have the high stakes tests we have here, and a teacher's evaluation is not based on students' test scores. And, in Finland, teachers are represented by unions.

I am concerned that the voices of  "reform" do not include true educators, that there is no evidence to support the changes advocated by Duncan, Gates, Rhee, et al. I am concerned about the persistent and pernicious drumbeat vilifying teachers while our society takes no responsibility for a collapsed financial system that has dramatically increased poverty in this country. When teachers express concerns about the students who go hungry, lack safety and stability at home, and have behavior problems so severe that it hampers our ability to teach, I am deeply troubled by those in the "reform" camp who respond by saying we are simply making excuses for our own ineptitude and laziness. Mostly I am concerned for the nation's children and for the loss of a public education system envisioned by Jefferson as the true foundation of a great democracy.


Post Script:  The following article provides a detailed analysis of actual educational data and the Gates Foundation's misuse or misrepresentation of the data. In the article Arne Duncan and Bill Gates are both quoted making statements that, while not dismissed by the author as false, are simply not supported by evidence. Fact-Challenged Policy by Richard Rothstein, Economic Policy Institute.