'Which Side are You On?'

A couple of folks asked me for my opinion on Betsy DeVos as education secretary. 

My response is that anyone who is willing to work for this administration has disqualified herself from being worthy of it.

To wit: if a person is willing to go to work for Trump, he or she doesn't have either 

1) the values to use the ed secretary's bully pulpit to push against the inequality endemic in public education or 

2) the spine to stand up against the bigotry necessary to do so.

The Secretary of Education has some formal power and a lot of informal influence. If DeVos is willing to compromise herself in to order to have the title, she's kneecapped herself in actually exercising the influence. 

That sort of influence comes from moral authority. In saying yes to Trump, you give up your claim to that sort of power. 

***

Of course, the argument goes, someone's got to be the secretary. It might as well be the best person possible. 

In a normal circumstances, sure. A secretary appointed by a Republican will be on one end of a range of views; a Democratic secretary will be on the other end. Ideally, I'd want someone who is willing to push on holding schools accountable, offer flexibility on licensing, and hold for-profit groups in check, to name a few (of many) things I personally care about. 

I agree with DeVos on a few issues, disagree with many more, and don't know about a lot of stuff because she's mostly been a philanthropist and behind-the-scenes player.

Elections have consequences and I'm OK with leaders who go in very different directions. I'm OK with DeVos's nontraditional résumé for the role. Such is the reality of our democracy. 

In these times, though, values come before before policy. Specifically, who one is willing to work for reveals a lot of about that person's values. 

Trump represents a series of values -- bigotry, cruelty, authoritarianism, irrationality, to name a few -- that run counter to the American idea. When history calls us to account for this era, the refrain will be the same as the labor and civil rights song "Which Side are You On?"

We haven't judged kindly those who took nuanced views on integrating schools, buses, and lunch counters in South. Working for George Wallace or Ross Barnett was a stain that has only looked worse with time. John Lewis took a side against them and the system they represented. 

Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2017

mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk - no action or results. Sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2017

"All talk, talk, talk - no action or results."

One cannot truly value the idea of our public schools as the door the American dream for all and also be OK with Trump.

***

There is a time for nuance. There's a time for working with those whom you vehemently disagree. That's a necessary part of making this country work.

There's also a time for just taking a side. 

Everything we know right now about Trump says opposition is the only moral option.

Betsy DeVos's choice reveled where her values really are. The things Donald Trump said and did over many years -- and especially during his campaign -- did not disqualify him, in her eyes, from the presidency. 

Therefore, she is unfit to serve as the figurehead leader of American public education. 

Anatomy of a mediocre lesson

Today was probably my worst day of teaching this year. Here's why:

• I tried to cram too much in one lesson, so it felt disjointed on my end. The students likely didn't retain the most critical information because there was too much of it. This is best illustrated by attempting to slake your thirst by putting 20 oz. of water in a 12 oz. glass.

• I didn't consider the entire lesson from a student's perspective. Specifically, I didn't fully think through how they would process the information. Therefore, sometimes the students were put in a position of listening for too long a period without a chance to speak and write. This also hindered me knowing what they learned because the questions I did have them write about weren't the most critical to understanding the lesson. In short -- I focused on what would be doing at the expense of being clear regarding what I wanted them to do.

• I failed to order the information so it was clear which were the foundation pieces of knowledge, then how various pieces connected. The connections that were there were haphazard so it's likely most students' first impression were formed in very different ways. This is similar to having a poor foundation to a house. The only way to really fix is just go back and do it again. 

***

When these days (inevitably) happen, I think back to early in my career. When a lesson went sideways then, it meant that student behavior would be so off that I'd usually need to call in another teacher or assistant principal. On those days, I would leave school emotionally drained. I'd procrastinate on planning because I'd still be angry. I'd go to bed feeling a pit in my stomach, knowing that I'd set myself up to have the same problems the next day. 

Teaching is better now. My worst day now far surpasses my best day then. 

Now, I'm mostly just annoyed when I don't do that great of a job. I hate it when I see kids who are trying to learn, just not quite getting there, and it's my responsibility.

I understand this is a part of the job -- of any job, really. Just thought it's worth marking the days in the classroom that aren't typically captured in an exemplar teaching clip or make it to YouTube because kids are chucking chairs at each other.

I won't be nominated to be profiled in Teach Like A Champion anytime soon, but you shouldn't see my class on Vine either. (If you do, let me know, so I can confiscate the phone tomorrow)

Onward and upward! 

Propaganda -- what happens when you fill up on junk food

So I'm furious that the Russians tipped the election to Donald Trump. I can't say I'm surprised by it, though. 

I've read a lot of analyses about how the Russians did it and the various effects on the electorate. I've read critiques of the media for playing into the hands of Russian hackers and WikiLeaks. What I haven't seen much about is why tens of millions of Americans were primed to be played for suckers. 

Why were so many of us ready to buy into a what Internet trolls (some paid by Russian spy agencies) spread around Twitter? Why were John Podesta's emails interpreted as anything other than run-of-the-mill politics? Why were we so inclined to believe the worst about us? Why did we not see propaganda for what it is?

***

A couple months ago, the NPR podcast Planet Money tracked down a writer who wrote and spread right-wing disinformation via social media so he could cash in on the advertising.

SYDELL: And this brings us to the article we have been tracking this whole time, the one about the FBI agent who was killed after his alleged involvement in leaking Clinton's emails. Jestin did not write it, doesn't know the real name of the contributor who did, but he did publish it, and he says it got 1.6 million views over 10 days.
COLER: You know, the people wanted to hear this, you know? So all it took was to write that story. Everything about it was fictional - the town, the people, the sheriff, the FBI guy. And then, you know, had our social media guys kind of go out and do a little dropping it throughout Trump groups and Trump forums, and, boy, it spread like wildfire.
SMITH: The story was quickly debunked on sites like snopes.com. And the real paper in Denver, The Denver Post. But for lots of Trump supporters, this did not matter.
COLER: They don't care that it was debunked, you know? Snopes is run by George Soros and is a Obama mouthpiece to them. And, you know, the credibility of these kind of sources, I guess, has been just tarnished so much that nobody even listens anymore.

(Emphasis mine)

They asked him why he didn't do the same for an audience of gullible liberals.

SMITH: And Jestin (Coler) says, at least in the beginning, he was an equal opportunity prankster. He tried to peddle fake news for lefties, he says, making up vile things about conservatives.
COLER: It just has never worked. It never takes off. People will always say - you know, you'll get de-bunked, like, within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

***

The Russian campaign of hacking, selective leaking, and disinformation in the service of electing Donald Trump was successful because Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and a few hundred wannabes have done awfully similar work for the better part of three decades. 

Yes, it's horrifying that it's being done by a foreign power with malicious intent and it's fair to say this is one of the most successful campaigns carried out by foreign espionage service against the U.S.  

However, we, the voters, laid the groundwork for it to work. A significant chunk of the electorate has been mainlining propaganda that tells them that not only are liberals and Democrats wrong, they're actively and purposefully seeking to destroy America. They are capable of murder.

The boundaries of acceptable political discourse in our country have been decimated to the point that they really don't exist for a lot of us. Put it this way: if you think someone murdered a person for political gain, you can't then argue with that person (or people who support her) about the appropriate size of the federal budget. You chant, "Lock her up!" and equate voting for her with treason.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin didn't destroy our political norms. They just took advantage of that the fact we barely have any left.

We can blame a lot of people and organizations for spreading propaganda. We can call out the gains to be made from doing so -- money, influence. 

We should also call out that many of us eagerly lapped up this stuff and have been doing so for a long time.

Highly paid teaching position available in Nashville!

The Tennessee Titans fired their wide receivers and assistant wide receivers coaches today. 

I find this interesting and not just because I follow the Titans to a degree that would surprise even most people who know me. 

Anyway, NFL position coaches are one of the rare places in high profile sports where the job is mostly about teaching. While most folks don't know who these guys are (sadly and unfairly, most of them are guys), they are likely some of the most highly paid and heavily scrutinized teachers in the country.

(How much of an impact can they have? One of the reasons given for the New England Patriots' successful season is the return of their offensive line coach from retirement. The Patriots offensive line, with pretty much the same players, went from being one of the worst in the league last year to one of the best.) 

Their job is mostly focused on people development. There's an aspect of evaluation, too, though actual decisions about which players make up the team more heavily influenced by the scouting staff and general manager (and head coach in some cases). Unlike college coaches, NFL position coaches don't recruit players to a program. Their job is take the players they have and develop their skill set according to the larger vision of the head coach or coordinator. 

So, they teach. 

This firing raises those questions because the Titans' head coach has been friends with the more senior coach he fired today. The guy actually came out of retirement to coach the wide receivers. It doesn't seem personal. This seems like the head coach had an issue with how he was teaching.

I'm curious as to what actual instruction looks like at an NFL level. How do coaches develop their craft? How do they teach complicated game plans that can change significantly even in-game? How are position coaches evaluated at the end of the year?

I'm pretty sure "Hard Knocks" or any number of "NFL Insider" segments aren't representative of the teaching position coaches do. I would also bet that the people who coach at this level conduct themselves differently from the stereotypical screaming high school football coach. 

A few weeks ago, San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich hinted at the approach one takes with adult, professional athletes.

Gregg Popovich with a great response when asked it was his fault his players weren't motivated to play tonight pic.twitter.com/jdIUHB34Eh

— gifdsports (@gifdsports) December 9, 2016

"No Knute Rockne speeches." (Since I read more sports media than is healthy, I take special pleasure when future Hall of Fame coaches knock down sports cliches.)

While I really don't have an idea what teaching looks like at an NFL or NBA level, it's worth noting that U.S. Soccer hired Teach Like a Champion author Doug Lemov to consult. He's been working high-level coaches across the country to improve how advanced soccer players practice. He reflected in a recent post:

Had a pretty amazing day in Chicago on Wednesday, talking teaching with a group of (mostly) MLS professional soccer coaches who are enrolled in US Soccer’s new Pro License course. The group includes guys who I admire as coaches and who I followed as players. I was a little bit starstruck… but I got over that fast because the conversation was so rich. 

Interestingly, we didn’t watch any footage of soccer training. We watched classroom footage and applied the principles to teaching during training.The closest we got to watching “practice” was an amazing video of music teacher John Burmeister (who I’ve written about before) wokring with an upstate New York youth orchestra. His session is a master class on having a clear and specific goal and breaking the session up into rounds of progressive challenge, each with a single piece of feedback to focus on and execute.

The rest of the post is worth reading for its discussion of how to actually run a highly successful practice. One of the things I appreciate about Lemov is how he's evolved his focus to the intricacies of practice, then looked across disciplines -- teaching, music, soccer -- to apply it. (Hell, he wrote a book about it.)

Great teachers run great practices. I wish I could observe more high-level coaches when they're planning and running practice. I bet I'd find quite a few things to apply in my classroom.