We’re excited to announce that Teaching Tolerance has won six REVERE Awards, given by the Association of American Publishers! These awards “identify and honor high quality resources that educate learners of all ages, in all media, and in all educational environments, both in and beyond the classroom.”
The top awards, called the Golden Lamp Awards, will be given when the AAP celebrates this year’s winners at its annual gala in May. We’re up for two Golden Lamps, so we hope to have more news then (fingers crossed).
Meanwhile, please join us in celebrating these wins—we owe them to you and the work you do for students each day.
Lesson Series on Immigrants
Best Social Science and History Supplemental Resource
With all the political debate about immigration happening in our country and around the world, you may be looking for ways to teach about this important topic. Help your elementary students discover what they have in common with young people around the world with two lessons on immigration and immigrant experiences. These collaborative and highly engaging lessons are aimed toward grades 3–5 but can easily be adapted for older and younger students.
STEM Lesson Series
Best Science, Health and Environment Supplemental Resource
This series of lessons explores the work of STEM professionals, examines the underrepresentation of women and people of color in STEM, and considers ways to encourage diversity in these fields. Students get in touch with their “inner scientists” as they explore the varied work of scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians and discuss possible reasons that prevent various groups from being equally represented in STEM careers. The theme of this series is “STEM for all!”
EDITORIAL AND DESIGN WINNERS
Teaching Tolerance Magazine
Best Overall Editorial in Professional Magazines
Best Overall Publication in Professional Magazines
Teaching Tolerance magazine provides teachers, administrators, librarians and counselors with the knowledge and support they need to be effective anti-bias practitioners and advocates for equity and justice in schools. This publication distills complex topics and innovative research into digestible features. Recent topics include political polarization, whiteness and school resegregation and closures. Subscriptions are free to K–12 educators in the United States and Canada. Sign up today!
Teaching Tolerance Magazine, Fall 2016
Best Single Issue Editorial in Professional Magazines
The Fall 2016 issue of Teaching Tolerance helps teachers navigate the 2016 election by unpacking topics such as voting rights, civil discourse and political polarization in the classroom. A particularly popular feature, “No Time Off,” delves into the heavy responsibilities many students face when they leave school for the day. The issue’s most-read feature, “Don’t Say Nothing,” addresses another timely topic by empowering educators to teach about police violence.
"Anatomy of an Ally"
Best Feature in Professional Resources
When educators witness students facing oppression based on their identities, caring is not enough. This feature explains how to be a “teacher ally”—a teacher who works to fully understand their own identity and privilege, and who commits to dismantling systems that silence students and colleagues. This feature also explains how to breathe new life into the classroom and the curriculum to support marginalized students.
Best Illustrations, Graphics and Photography
When learning about people of races, ethnicities, religions or nationalities that differ from their own, students—and everyone else—tend to focus on the differences. But learning with international films can help students explore themes that connect people across space and time. “Reel Life” offers teachers strategies to do just that.
EDITORIAL AND DESIGN FINALISTS
"Shifting Out Of Neutral"
Best Feature in Professional Resources
History teachers have a unique opportunity to cultivate morality in the classroom. Rather than leave their objectivity at the door, the author of “Shifting Out of Neutral” encourages teachers to give honest attention to the roles that power and privilege play in the narration of history and historical injustices. By owning and assessing their biases and providing evidence for their viewpoints, both teachers and students can develop strong moral views necessary for making change.
"No Time Off"
Best Illustrations, Graphics and Photography
Millions of students in the United States carry heavy loads, juggling school with employment, caregiving, parenting or some combination thereof. This feature examines common challenges that students with large out-of-school responsibilities face. It also shows how educators’ awareness of these responsibilities isn’t enough; students also need supportive advocates within their schools.
Oh, United Airlines. You’re trying. You really are. But your repeated explanations about why your gate agent turned away two girls (and delayed boarding a third) for wearing leggings this weekend isn’t going over well with critics. Here’s why.
1. Your explanation rings hollow. You’re pinning your response on the fact that the girls were not paying customers but “pass travelers” and thus subject to a dress code out of respect for its customers. The dress code also states that pass travelers should look "neat and professional" and prohibits form-fitting or spandex tops, pants and dresses, T-shirts with derogatory language, and clothing that is "excessively dirty,” worn or "inappropriately revealing.”
First of all, how are the paying customers going to know who is flying as a pass traveler and who isn’t? Secondly, publically shaming anyone—paying or not—and then denying them services not only humiliates that person but also causes a disruption for everyone, escalating stress in the already stressful airport environment. It also sends the backhanded message that you think all leggings are inappropriate (even though you say otherwise), but keep it to yourself because you know you can’t force your customers to wear loose-fitting clothing. If maintaining good customer relations is the goal, how exactly does this action accomplish it?
2. Your policy—and the way it was enforced—relies on sexist norms. These legging-wearers may not have been paying customers, but they are young women and girls (the youngest was reportedly 10) who were publically told that their bodies were too visible and therefore that they lacked decency. Why? Because girls’ bodies are inherently desirable? Distracting? Sexy? To whom, exactly? And why are we privileging the feelings of a possibly distracted mystery person over the freedom to dress oneself? If anyone ever needed an example of what mainstream sexism looks like, this is it.
3. You’re not listening to the public. Customers quickly took to social media Sunday morning, protesting the gate agent’s actions and the policy. Instead of admitting you have some work to do, you doubled down on the correctness of the gate agent and issued a dozen different versions of the classic non-apology: “I’m sorry you were offended.” For anyone who has ever spoken truth to power, this response is maddening. It is essentially a polite way of making the victim (or those defending the victim) the problem.
United, believe it or not, there are many school administrators around the country who identify with the pain of this debacle. As an organization that provides resources to educators, we help school leaders grapple with these dynamics daily. Many of them have learned the hazards of setting different standards for different groups, enforcing dress codes that target a particular identity and sticking stubbornly to zero-tolerance rules that ultimately cause more negative consequences than they prevent. That’s why many schools are moving away from policies that rely on policing students. Consider reading this article about how to do it.
And even if you don’t, for Pete’s sake, just apologize. You’re a multinational corporation. They’re children. Talk about lack of decency.
van der Valk is the deputy director for Teaching Tolerance.
The Atlantic: “In all likelihood, vouchers will lead to more racial, religious, and socioeconomic segregation in schools.”
CBS News: “Sesame Street has always based its characters and content on extensive research. ... In the case of Julia, they also worked with autism organizations to decide which characteristics she should have and how best to normalize autism for all children.”
Education Week: “My job as an educator is not to perpetuate an oppressive system, but rather to give students the tools to dismantle it. Ultimately, that’s what the canon has often been. It’s been a way to silence the stories of those not in power by claiming they lack importance or influence.”
The Guardian: “‘The Mercator [map] projection is a symbolic representation that put Europe at the center of the world. And when you continue to show images of the places where people’s heritage is rooted that is not accurate, that has an effect on students.’”
The Hechinger Report: “The GNETS [Georgia’s Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support] system violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, both by segregating children with disabilities and by denying them access to an equal education.”
The Huffington Post: “The Monroe Work Today research group launched a map earlier this year that allows users to discover the roughly 4,770 people of color lynched in the United States from the 1830s to the 1960s.”
National Public Radio: “We still don’t know is whether students who escape suspension under new discipline policies will eventually end up better off.”
NEA Today: “This glaring gap between policy and practice ... suggests the global community is ignoring its responsibility ‘to help children and youth who have fled regions affected by armed conflict go to and stay in school.’”
The New York Times: “Iowa is one of 31 states where legislators have proposed creating or expanding school choice programs this year, without Washington even lifting a finger.”
The New York Times: “Museums that preserve and present the truth are also fighting revisionists and Holocaust deniers who are increasingly vocal on the internet, and who are confusing the public, at a time when firsthand accounts of the Holocaust are fading.”
The Washington Post: “The ‘evidence is overwhelming that the unjustified incarceration of African American fathers (and, increasingly, mothers as well) is an important cause of the lowered performance of their children’ and of the racial achievement gap.”
If you come across a current article or blog you think other educators should read, please send it to email@example.com, and put “What We’re Reading This Week” in the subject line.
Little was said in the news yesterday about the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in a case involving a student with autism. In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, the student’s family asserted that their son did not receive a free and adequate public education (FAPE) from the Douglas County School District in Colorado. The Court agreed with Endrew’s family and reversed a lower-court ruling that found Douglas County Schools had provided education services that met the standards required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
When the story did appear, it was the reversal—not the reason for the ruling itself—that the media remarked upon. Why? Because while the Court was deciding the case, the Senate was hearing testimony from Judge Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice, and Gorsuch was part of the three-judge panel that had originally decided the case in the 10th Circuit Court in Denver in 2008. Essentially, the Court Gorsuch aspires to serve on unanimously disagreed with his written opinion, finding that the FAPE standard the 10th Circuit had established as acceptable was, in fact, too low.
The Supreme Court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, states, "It cannot be right that the IDEA generally contemplates grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who are fully integrated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for children who are not.”
Taking the potential blow to Gorsuch’s legal reputation out of the equation, there are two elements of this news story that should be of interest to educators. One, the rights of millions of children with disabilities were defended and likely enhanced yesterday. That should be cause for celebration. Children like Endrew and their families now have more leverage with which to advocate for services. Schools, too, will be incentivized to grow and innovate.
“We expect this unanimous decision to be transformative in the lives of students with disabilities,” said Denise Marshall, executive director of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. “Today the (Supreme Court) affirmed what we know to be the promise of the IDEA.”
The second remarkable point related to this decision is how little the nation seemed to care, except insomuch as it happened to interact with a splashy political moment—Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. This is cause for concern but, sadly, not surprising. Children with disabilities are some of the most invisible people in society. They are young, they are widely viewed through a deficit lens, and they may have health or behavior issues that challenge systems that privilege healthy and able-bodied people. They often face disproportionate and more punitive discipline in schools. And if they also happen to be black or brown or LGBT or undocumented or belong to any other marginalized identity group, they are also more likely to experience unequal treatment at the hands of medical staff, educators, caregivers and law enforcement agents who labor under implicit biases.
The imbalance of media attention to how this decision will or won’t affect Gorsuch versus the impact it will have on the lives of millions of children is a textbook illustration of our national tendency to fetishize power and privilege and to overlook the intersectional identities and concerns of the most vulnerable individuals. We tell our students to read between the lines and look for the voices that are not represented. Endrew's case is a prime example of why we as educators—not to mention as concerned citizens and human beings—need to do the same.
van der Valk is the deputy director for Teaching Tolerance.
President Donald Trump’s budget proposal—which includes slashing the Department of Education’s budget by 13.5 percent and allocating $1.4 billion for school choice initiatives—was released last week.
Trump’s proposed $9.2 million in cuts would eliminate, for example, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which funds after-school programs for students from low-income families. Also on the chopping block: Title II, Part A of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which supports teacher training, recruitment and retention. That loss could dramatically impact states such as California, which is experiencing severe teacher shortages.
As we know, Congress actually crafts the federal budget, and many Democrats and Republicans agree that Trump’s “wish list” of proposals will not survive intact. But examine the ideology underlying Trump’s education blueprint (which is supported by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos), and it becomes clear that there is still cause for concern.
Namely, Trump’s so-called “skinny budget” is designed to starve public education while stuffing the privatization movement with resources, all under the guise of civil rights.
Trump has proposed a $168 million increase for charter schools (which presently receive over $300 annually) and $1 billion to promote and increase school choice in Title I schools. Another $250 million would go to a new “private school choice program,” but details about its structure or reach haven’t been released yet.
DeVos lauded Trump’s proposed budget increases, saying they would protect the “nation’s most vulnerable populations” by providing “an equal opportunity of a quality education for all students.” Trump quoted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s reference to “inferior education” at the end of the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery March as a reason to provide more school choice, and has said that, ideally, the federal budget would eventually invest $20 billion annually in school choice programs.
Allocating taxpayer money to subsidize private and religious schools, while failing to provide the same robust support for public schools, will result in the exact opposite of equitable education. It will fail to serve students of color, those who come from low-income families or live in rural America.
These concerns are being raised within Congress. On March 22, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington issued a 20-page memo detailing concerns about school privatization efforts. She writes:
While supporters try to argue the programs proposed in President Trump's budget increase ‘school choice,’ in reality, privatization presents a false choice for parents, students, and communities. … [T]he reality is that private schools receiving taxpayer funds lack accountability and transparency, can deny students and parents basic rights, and are inaccessible to students in rural areas and students who cannot afford to pay the difference in cost between the voucher and private school tuition.
School choice is not the only example of the Trump administration ignoring education data. His budget proposal reduces or eliminates a total of 20 Department of Education programs that were deemed “not effective … or that do not serve national needs.”
The proposal provides no data to support those determinations. President Trump’s budget director Mick Mulvaney has been criticized for stating that numerous programs on the proposed chopping block, ranging from Meals on Wheels to after-school programs, are ineffectual.
But the data reveals quite the opposite. For example, Becoming a Man, an after-school program in Chicago that is partially funded by 21st Century Community Learning Centers, improves graduation rates by 19 percent.
In another example, a recent study by the Learning Policy Institute found that an effective way to combat teacher shortages was to invest in mentoring programs for beginning teachers to increase their competence and to reduce attrition. Schools should pay for such programs by “leveraging ESSA Title II dollars,” which would be entirely cut under Trump’s proposal.
So if Trump’s budget is simply a wish list, what happens next? The first battle in Congress will be over passing legislation to fund the government beyond April 29.
Once it has resolved the 2017 budget, Congress can begin addressing fiscal year 2018, which begins in October. In the coming months, House and Senate representatives will likely hear a great deal from their constituents about how closely—or how vastly different—the new budget should reflect Trump’s plan.
To paraphrase an already well-worn saying: Trump’s approach to education funding won’t be taken literally by Congress, but it may very well be taken seriously.
This blog was produced in partnership with the anti-hate news project 500 Pens.
Applegate is a journalist, editor and storyteller who focuses on youth, family and social justice issues.