The People’s Sauce is Deepest Red

Editor’s note: When I encountered one Gochu-Juan on Twitter, I could hardly believe my good fortune. Here at last one was someone who described himself as a *one-stop shop for fusion recipes, angry socialist politics, and education policy.* And so I extended a invitation. Would Gochu-Juan consider writing something that combined all of these loves into one edible delight that I might share on this page? Happily, he accepted my challenge and, in what I will hope will be merely the first dish of a multi-course meal, the fruits of his deep red labors appear below…

By Gochu-Juan
The people’s sauce is deepest red – or, at least, it will be, if I have anything to say about it.

Displaying (5) Buldak Pastelón - 5.jpgWhile I understand that the agreement that the Chicago Teachers Union was able to strike with Chicago Public Schools a week and a half ago isn’t quite perfect, the fact that teachers were able to flex enough working muscle to force a large public school district to actually negotiate inspired me to try and honor CTU’s victory with the angriest, most passionate red sauce I could find.

First, I tried various things based off of roasted red peppers, figuring the darker tint from the oven would help, but there was no way to turn them into sauce that didn’t come out looking orange.

In my desperation, I stumbled upon Maangchi’s recipe for chijeu-buldak, which involved three of my favorite things: chicken, mozzarella cheese, and most importantly, gochujang, the thick, dark red pepper paste used for a lot of Korean cooking.

Then, like a jolt from my favorite Korean chili paste, I remembered my mission—to synthesize Korean and Puerto Rican cooking into a glorious, red-gold apotheosisand the light went off.

Pastelón, for those unfamiliar with the term, is the closest thing Puerto Ricans have to lasagna. It’s a layered dish of plantains, meat, cheese, and various other ingredients, depending on what you want to do with it. The starchy yuca I planned to use would certainly do for a *spice sink,* counteracting the heat of the deep, dark red sauce that I was after.

Here’s how I did it. Continue reading →

How Joy Became the New Grit

Schools are increasingly manipulating students’ emotions in the name of achievementand that’s wrong says University of Pennsylvania education professor Joan Goodman…

By Joan Goodman
*No excuses* charter schools face a teaching predicament. Their long school day/year with few diverting extra-curricular activities and heavily rule-impactgoverned pedagogy is tough on students. Inevitably, strict behavior restrictions, aimed not just at controlling common misbehaviors but also behaviors that might lead to misbehavior, result in a gulf between student desires and teacher demands. To close the gulf and avoid constantly admonishing students, charter management organizations have layered onto their culture an expectation that learning is to be approached joyously. Indeed, joy has been elevated to a central value at many CMOs.

The j-factor
Uncommon Schools promotes *joy* as one of its five values; Democracy Prep advertises a *joyous culture* with enthusiasm as one of its DREAM values; Mastery lists *joy and humor* among its nine core values; and Achievement First includes the child’s joy in its assessments of  student progress. Success Academy says that, along with rigor, its schools stress *humor (joy)…making achieving exhilarating and fun!* Meanwhile, KIPP includes joy’s close cousin, *zest,* as one of the seven character strengths on its Character Growth Card. Chicago’s Noble Network has likewise embraced *zest.* According to Doug Lemov, a major source of CMO pedagogy, the Joy Factor, one of his 49 essential techniques, is *a key driver not just of a happy classroom but of a high-achieving classroom…. people work harder…when their work is punctuated regularly by moment of exultation and joy.*

When I first began visiting no excuses schools, I was struck by the striking juxtaposition of teachers presiding over silent class periods during which children diligently followed instructions, only to interrupt them periodically with the demand for reciprocal clapping, rhymed motivational cheers, and choral responses that seemed more appropriate to an athletic or marching event than an academic environment. The effort of schools to whoop up excitement appeared artificial and disingenuous given the often tedious tasks students were assigned, and the passive/receptive role they were, for the most part, expected to assume.

Stimulating this shallow ‘joy’ is, then, just another control technique designed to foster high achievement. Joy has become a ‘character strength,’ like grit, because of the results it produces, not for its own sake.

The intentional artifice is particularly clear in teacher training videos, when leaders like Lemov, or Doug McCurry of Achievement First, talk about how teachers must be skilled at quickly turning arousal on and quickly turning it off so that it serves its purpose – aiding their academic objectives. Stimulating this shallow *joy* is, then, just another control technique designed to foster high achievement. Joy has become a *character strength,* like grit, because of the results it produces, not for its own sake.

Just add sparkle
To elicit joy, the CMOs use emotional arousal techniques such as choral chanting, finger snapping, and gestural sequences. For instance, to lend *sparkle* to a lesson, Lemov advocates the Vegas Technique. This entails breaks from instruction, as brief as 30 seconds, for a ritualized routine loosely associated with the lesson. Students might, for example, do an action-verb shimmy, clap a routine to accompany a pronoun, or perform a vocabulary word charade. Achievement First’s McCurry advises teachers to plan *joyous interludes* by using four chants accompanied with gestures and 10 cheers per class. One chant, for example, is: *hey hey hey, I feel all-right,* followed with a stomp. The phrase is repeated with two stomps, then three stomps and finished off with: *I feel motivated to learn. And graduate college.*

KIPP defines chanting as a key component of *KIPPnotizing,* the process by which students come to identify with the school and its culture. As this student-family handbook from KIPP Triumph Academy, St Louis Middle School explains:

Chanting at KIPP Triumph begins in summer school, where all new students learn a series of school wide chants. For 5th graders, learning to chant their multiplication tables during summer school is an essential part of their KIPPnotizing. Since many of our students arrive so far below grade level, they often have significant deficits in terms of their multiplication facts. However, when set to a chant, students—even our most struggling students—are able to learn all of their times tables in a few weeks.

The following jingles from KIPP are illustrative:


A is for audacious
What could be wrong with teachers using stomps, chants and *sparkle* as a means of generating *joy* in their students? For one, the chants, like those from KIPP have little to do with learning and less to do with education; indeed, they may work against it. Education is not recitation; it is becoming knowledgeable and curious about our human heritage—physical and cultural—about the properties of the universe from atoms to galaxies, about the heights and depths of civilizations, about current threats to the biosphere and the dignity of living beings. History is a dramatic story of events and dilemmas, brave and principled heroes, vain and villainous deeds that should stir reason and emotions. Claps and jingles get in the way of this pursuit. A better antidote to low interest is a fascinating rather than fast-paced, even frantic lesson.

Emotional manipulation?
But there is something more disturbing at work here than abetting memorization rather than deeper learning. Educators at no excuses schools assume the Image result for joyauthority to manufacture emotional states in students in the service of academic achievement, while at the same time disallowing genuine emotional states – anger for example – when they interfere with teaching. They stimulate *joy* so that their students will greet the strict codes of discipline and daunting academic expectations at these schools with eagerness and excitement.  But genuine joy cannot be canned or imposed. As C.S. Lewis described it, true joy is experienced as descending upon us, stabbing us unexpectedly; unlike pleasure, it is not in our power to procure. Real joy must come from within.  While it is possible to set the stage for a joyous experience, it is inauthentic, even manipulative, to demand, regulate, and use *joy* to improve a test score or make students pliant to authority figures.

That is not to say schools shouldn’t plan for fun, have games, skits, songs as a release from work, or sometimes to facilitate rote learning. It is also true that through such activities there is important social learning and opportunities for inventiveness.  But that is qualitatively different from stimulating a culture that imposes bursts of joy, excitement, zest. The harder, more essential, task is to stimulate genuine intrinsic interest in students rather than externally induced transient excitement. We’ve known since Piaget that without significant and authentic input from students themselves, without engagement through interaction, learning will be a collection of evanescent bits and pieces; hardly joyous.

Joan Goodman is a Professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania and a psychologist. She did an interview with EduShyster in 2013 about The High Cost of No Excuses.

Send tips and comments to

Apples to Apples

I talk to Richard Whitmire, author of The Founders, about the NAACP moratorium, the *charter pushback movement* and how to measure Success… 

1471902369_3354.png (600×375)EduShyster: Let’s start at the end of your new book, The Founders: Inside the revolution to invent (and reinvent) America’s best charter schools. You wrap up with three challenges facing charter school expansion, one of which is what you call *the charter pushback movement.* It seems to be gaining steam, even since the book came out. How concerned are you about, say, the NAACP moratorium or the Black Lives Matter platform which makes many of the same demands?

Whitmire: I’m concerned about it because any time you start playing race cards it gets a little dicey. I think the unions are pushing any edge that they can get in this battle and they’re doing quite a good job of it. Frankly it doesn’t surprise me at all because if you’re looking at this from a political perspective, in other words, how to build a political base in *x* city, then the traditional school system—forced assignment, no charters—really works out better for you. I saw that in Washington DC when I was doing the Rhee book. Marion Barry had that Department of Education just overflowing with people. It was all part of his political machine. And it worked out really really well for him and it worked out really really well for the people who were employed there. The only people it didn’t work out well for were the kids. But from a political machine point of view, that’s the model you want. That’s the model that’s preferable. So it’s understandable why they’d push for that. But again, you have to look at those who are aspiring to be political leaders or already are and then those parents, and I come back again and again to those 4,000 parents on the waiting list for the Brooke Charter School in Boston. They’re all either Black or Hispanic. Who are you going to listen to: the NAACP or those parents? I choose the latter. Continue reading →

Order in the Court

gavelA lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’ charter school cap on civil rights grounds gets tossed. And that’s not a nothingburger…

No sooner had we been instructed to drain the words *drain* and *siphon* from our collective vocabularies than an order came down on from on high, ordering us to re-instate them. I speak, of course, about this week’s Superior Court decision tossing a lawsuit challenging the Bay State’s charter cap on civil rights grounds. It’s time to head to court, reader. And must I remind you that as t’is now after Labor Day, no white shoes allowed? That is unless you happen to be clad in white bucks on behalf of, well, white bucks. Continue reading →

Choice for Me but Not for Thee?

A voter is deeply conflicted over the ballot question to expand charter schools in Massachusetts. Paging the Edulosopher

the-thinkerDear Edulosopher:
A few years ago my family moved from New York City to Massachusetts. Before we made the move, we thought we’d be moving to Jamaica Plain, but we also looked at Brookline. Fear of the Boston Public Schools lottery system (among other things) led us to choose Brookline, even though the rent was going to be higher. We wanted to make sure that our daughter got the best public education we could afford. And that’s the issue that the upcoming charter school vote has created for me. Until a month ago, I thought I was going to vote no on lifting the cap on charter schools. I’m pro-union and believe strongly in public schools. I’ve long worried that charter schools could end up creating even worse public schools in communities with already struggling schools, because motivated parents would move their children into the better schools, leaving the weakest students behind in weaker schools. What I was blind to, shamefully, was that my family had made precisely that same choice by moving to Brookline. Shouldn’t families in communities with failing schools have the same option that I had, to move their children to better schools? I’m voting yes on expanding charter schools, but I remain troubled by the issues in play. I think that charters do hurt the overall system, but I cannot claim that poorer families than my own should not get the same option we had, and yet I fear that the growth of charters will let some policymakers think they are off the hook when it comes to making better schools for all. So, what’s the right way to deal with charters?

All Turned Around

Dear All Turned Around:
Parsing the debate surrounding charter schools is no simple task. As your question illustrates, the issue of charters moves quickly into choice, access to quality schools, what makes a school a good school, what makes a district a good district, teacher unions, and what makes a public school public, among other things. The thing is, I think most of these concerns are only indirectly related to making a decision about Question 2. Do not get me wrong. Asking gov-charlie-baker-proposes-bill-to-lift-charter-school-capshow we ought to deal with charters writ large is a question we should be talking about, but it is an enormous question. And it is really hard not to see Question 2 as a referendum on charter schools—so much of the rhetoric in this debate positions the ballot question precisely in these terms—but that understanding misrepresents what is at stake.

This ballot question is not about whether charter schools are, in principle, a good or bad thing. It will neither eliminate the 81 charter schools across Massachusetts nor limit the expansion of charter schools to the currently 120 schools the cap allows (although there is also a funding cap that does constrain expansion). These schools will continue to exist and do the work that they do. What the ballot question will do is make it possible for up to twelve Commonwealth charter schools to be opened each year, indefinitely. Interestingly, the bill specifically designates that the twelve additional charter schools will be Commonwealth charters, which operate independently from school districts, as opposed to Horace Mann charters, which operate under the oversight of local school committees. Voters thus need to decide if adding twelve new Commonwealth charters per year, indefinitely, is the best thing for Massachusetts children and schools.

Voters thus need to decide if adding twelve new Commonwealth charters per year, indefinitely, is the best thing for Massachusetts children and schools. Let me explain why I am skeptical that it is.

Let me explain why I am skeptical that it is. I am a big fan of careful thinking and careful planning. I worry that sometimes this makes me more of a gradualist than anything else, but I take there to be great virtue in making sure we (planners, citizens, etc.) get things as right as we can when we have the opportunity to act. In this case, I just do not see how Question 2 amounts to any sort of careful planning or to getting things as right as we can.

sops1Here are couple of reasons why. First, Question 2 does not address school funding even as it will likely increase the overall funds needed to sustain public schools in Boston (and elsewhere). As Gov. Baker has declared, the ballot question will not change the current school funding formula (see page 6 of the linked document). This means that funding for Commonwealth charter schools comes out of the state aid Boston (and every other school district) receives each year. As charter proponents note, because they consider charter schools to be public schools, we should not view this diversion of funds as a loss for public schools; rather, it is simply redirecting funds between public schools. But what this logic does not take into account is the cost this exerts on Boston writ large. Boston has had to devote more of the city’s budget to cover the growing costs of the Boston Public Schools, leading Mayor Walsh to claim that the expansion of charter schools without subsequent increases in state aid would *wreak havoc on our municipal finances.* The impact of this bill, then, would be felt not only on resources for schools, but also on Boston’s entire municipal budget. Given the way schools are currently funded, the city will be stuck trying to hold together the budget, often at the expense of other needed reforms and/or basic funding in other areas.

bpswalkout3Second, Question 2 has the effect of pitting groups who share common goals against each other. Sitting in the audience listening to a debate over Question 2 at the Harvard Graduate School of Education the other night, I heard people on both sides of the issue agree they want better schools and that more money is needed to achieve that end. But it was also clear that if we opt to expand the number of Commonwealth charters in Boston, more of the city’s state aid for education will be earmarked for charters, increasing the gap between the funds BPS receives and what it needs. This leaves Bostonians with a few unpleasant options: 1) continue to rely on the city to cover the gap, even though that requires more money to be pulled from other important city services; 2) fail to make up the gap and leave dedicated educators to squabble over limited resources (and who are we kidding, this burden will fall on district educators); or 3) close district schools and make other hard budget choices (harder than, say, what schools are already forced to consider).

Mayor Walsh’s analysis covers the problems of the first option (rely on the city to cover the lack of funds) pretty well, I think. The second option (require BPS to deal with the shortfall) undermines the idea that charter schools can be partners to district schools by making partners into competitors or, worse, adversaries. Charters, as we often hear, were originally established as laboratories of innovation, which could try out strategies that would improve all schools. But this partnership has not been as effective as those who first embraced charters likely hoped. Charters rely on practices (for example, limited admission points or largely inflexible behavioral and academic standards) that are suited solely for charter schools, limiting the transfer of those practices to district schools (BPS and the Boston Teachers Union did adopt extended day last year). Increasing financial stress would, I think, only further rupture this already tenuous relationship and push charters further from being district school partners and toward being district school replacements.

I also have doubts if replacing district schools with charter schools will ultimately address what people on both sides of the Question 2 debate care deeply about, namely, separate and unequal systems of schools. The movement to replace traditional schools with charters is geographically limited to urban areas with high populations of students of color. Nobody (at least that I know of) is seriously talking about supplementing Lincoln-Sudbury or Lexington High School with a charter school.

gsm-best-in-the-country-disclaimerI also have doubts if replacing district schools with charter schools will ultimately address what people on both sides of the Question 2 debate care deeply about, namely, separate and unequal systems of schools. The movement to replace traditional schools with charters is geographically limited to urban areas with high populations of students of color. Nobody (at least that I know of) is seriously talking about supplementing Lincoln-Sudbury or Lexington High School with a charter school. The end result, if things continue as they are, would be different schools for different groups of people that track disturbingly along lines of race, class, and geography. I just do not see how replacing traditional schools with charter schools while leaving in place residential segregation and its attendant socioeconomic inequalities will do much to mitigate either the separate or the unequal.

The third option (closures and other hard choices) is the likely result of the city not covering the funding gap. It, too, is a hard road to travel. Adding schools with no finite limit means that closing existing schools is not only likely, it is inevitable at some point in the process. And closures are, plain and simple, not popular. My colleague James Noonan has written about the potential for school closures in light of Question 2, and I think he covers the important points well. I have also written about school closures from a philosophical perspective, attempting to demonstrate just how complicated the problem is. As Noonan notes, another of our colleagues, Eve Ewing, wrote a masterful dissertation documenting school closures in her hometown of Chicago. I would also stress that just as charter schools increase the options parents and children have to choose from, charters also foreclose options—options that for some are valuable and desirable. This zero-sum instantiation of choice will, again, likely be exacerbated by the lack of additional funding.

The final thing I will say about Question 2 is this: I am not entirely sure that significant charter expansion of any sort—or at least the sort of unlimited growth that Question 2 ultimately enables—is in Boston and Massachusetts’ interest. I am entirely willing to accept that charter schools in Boston are particularly successful. In fact, when you look at how Massachusetts, in general, has handled charter schools there is a lot to like. For example, all potential Massachusetts charter schools must go through the state board of education. This has enabled the state to avoid some of the pitfalls we see in other states, where it sometimes feels like anybody with a half-cooked idea can open a charter school and receive taxpayer money. But I wonder whether and how much the success of Massachusetts charters in general and Boston charters in particular is due to the fact that we do not have too many of them (I am sure that one of my readers may have some data that answers this question, so please, please share!). If we open the floodgates, do we risk not only our municipal finances but also an already seemingly good thing?

I realize as I am finishing up that I have mostly just told you what I think rather than address your particular question. But I hope that in giving you my reasons you might recognize that this decision point does not have to rest on or resolve everything that bubbles to the surface whenever we talk about charter schools. Fixing educational inequality is a gargantuan, perhaps Sisyphean, task. We need to make sure each step forward is carefully placed. Question 2, as it stands, is not that sort of step forward.

Till next time,
The Edulosopher

Jacob FayJacob Fay is a doctoral student and member of the Early Career Scholar Program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, as well as a graduate fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics. He is the co-editor, with Meira Levinson, of Dilemmas of Educational Ethics: Cases and Commentaries. Prior to his doctoral studies, he taught eighth-grade history at the Dwight-Englewood School in New Jersey. Follow him on Twitter at @Edulosopher.

Got a question for the Edulosopher? Send it to