Fine and Performing Arts High School Coming Soon to Chicago—But Probably Not for You

Yesterday I attended a meeting about a new, still-in-the-works, fine and performing arts high school for Chicago. The meeting was held at the Chicago Community Trust. The school founders want to be part of Renaissance 2010 but aren’t sure yet if the new high school will be a “performance” or a “contract” school. They’d like the flexibility to hire non-certified teachers, but want the school to be “highly selective” (don’t they see the irony in that?). Auditions, portfolios, high scores, the whole screen-out process—that’s what they are aiming for. They only want “talented” students. But what looks like talent is usually just privilege.

Oddly, the school planners said several times that this school would be Chicago’s first and only fine and performing arts public high school. But I work with another one, which my employer, the School of the Art Institute, partners with—the two-year-old Multicultural Arts High School, in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood. Maybe this school doesn’t count to the planners because it isn’t selective. Any youth living in the school’s boundaries can enroll, and everyone enrolled makes art and learns to see themselves as artists. In other words, it’s really a public school. A city school. A school for everyone, not just the children of the wealthier, whiter, and more connected than average city families, which are the students who attend Chicago’s selective admission schools.

Maybe it’s a new Oprah syndrome—what DOESN’T she influence? Start a school! Give it your name! Claim its successes—and to make sure you have some, only let in the already successful! It’s a tried and true strategy; read The Chosen by Jerome Karabel to see how well it’s worked for the Big Three—Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Those schools thrived for decades by screening out Jews, women, and “pansies,” while admitting wealthy, white, Protestant men. Did I say wealthy? That was the primary criteria.

And actually, wealth will be the primary criteria at the new fine and performing arts high school, too, if, in the end, it is a selective admissions school. Why not just make it a private school, like the Ivy League joints? Then, use our public funds to fully and equitably fund art education for all of Chicago’s public school students, not just for the “talented” few.

Radical Education Work at Jane Addam’s “Hull of a House” Museum

Last night’s forum, Anti-Gay Pledges and Teacher Education: A Dialogue About the Tensions Between Private Beliefs and the Public Good, was beautiful to behold. About 25 people participated in the event, which took place at the Jane Addams (pictured here with her life partner, Mary Rozet Smith) Hull House Museum on the campus of the University of Illinois at Chicago, but no “official” Wheaton reps showed up. They sent a letter that arrived four days before the forum, to say they wouldn’t be there since they hadn’t helped plan the forum. But that is exactly what they were invited to do, two months earlier; they just didn’t ever contact us. Too bad for them, though, because we aimed to “speak with the expectation that we would be heard, and listen with the possibility that we could change” and the chat was wide-ranging and lively.

A queer teacher who grew up in Wheaton (or, as she said they affectionately call it there, “the 9th circle of hell”) talked about the distance of Wheaton College faculty and administrators from the lives of the school’s students and grads; a Chicago public school teacher described how changes in employment structures and the ongoing weakening of the Chicago Teacher’s Union contract have made queer teachers even more vulnerable; an administrator reminded us that we have to press the state and professional organizations to change, because they shape what happens in our public schools—if they ignore sexual orientation and gender identity, you can bet most schools will, too. After hearing why people came to the forum and what they wanted to talk about, we broke into small groups and talked about these and other questions:

Private Practices, Public Educators
What are the consequences when a private agency (NCATE) sets standards for public education?

Should private colleges with discriminatory “covenants” be supported (accredited) by the state to produce teachers for public schools?

Why are non-normative sexual and gender identities considered “private” and not worth public protections?

The Profession
What is the responsibility of the education profession--teachers, teacher educators, professional organizations, administrators—to challenge discriminatory practices, even when these are embedded in private institutions?

If “multiculturalism” can’t be or at least, isn’t consistently used to include sexual and gender identity in schools, what frameworks can be?

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
How is resistance to challenging and changing these policies connected to other movements for justice and equity for all, including LGBTQ, people?

What are the consequences of the distinction Wheaton makes between “acts” and “beliefs”—“love the sinner, hate the sin”?

Youth, Schools, Teachers
How do discriminatory policies—like Wheaton’s— contribute to the dehumanization of LGBTQ bodies in schools?

What effect could knowing their teachers believe they are condemned have on LGBT youth—would this knowledge be damaging emotionally, academically, or in other ways?

The forum ended with plans—we are only just starting this project, so join us. You can hear the large-group parts of our discussion online:

http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Program_AMP_Segment.aspx?segmentID=10199

I mourn Matthew Shepard’s actual death, caused by the unimpeachably civil ‘we hate the sin, not the sinner’ hypocrisy of the religious right, much more than I mourn the lost chance to be civil with someone who does not consider me fully a citizen, nor fully human.

Tony Kushner, 1998

$0 - $10,000: Art Education Budgets in Chicago Public Schools

No joking. That’s the range that I’ve heard about from my student and cooperating teachers in Chicago’s public schools.

Zero to ten thousand.

At one extreme are teachers who are given no funds to run their programs; they have to scrounge for the money and supplies to teach their classes. These teachers write grants, ask parents to donate what they can (like the bars of soap in this picture, for a carving project), dumpster dive, and solicit donations from local shops, in addition to teaching, curriculum planning, professionally developing and living.
From crayons and paper, to tempera and brushes—they get the money or the materials donated or they end up buying the stuff their students need themselves.

At the other extreme are teachers who have $10,000 to spend for class supplies. Supplies for their own classes, not a whole school's or department’s.
In between are teachers at schools that ask parents to pay fees for art and teachers who have fluctuating budgets (one year $400 split with another teacher at a school with 500 students; the next year $800 per teacher at the same school).

This is all in Chicago, all in public schools. This is what shapes the art educational experiences of our children. There’s no parity. No equity.

No kidding.

What’s the range that will inspire change? I think 0 to 10,000 should do it.

Who Would Jesus Tattle On?

After our visit to Wheaton College for the big Illinois teacher education conference (see below for story and picture), Erica and I were "censured" by the school. What follows is their letter to us, followed by our response. Inspired by Starhawk's wonderful SF novel, The Fifth Sacred Thing, we've invited the teacher educators of Wheaton to join us "at the table." We hope they will.
--
November 21, 2006

Dear Dr. Quinn,

It was quite distressing to learn that several weeks ago during the IACTE meeting held on our campus, fliers vilifying the Wheaton College Teacher Education Program were distributed with your contact information at the bottom. The title of this flyer, Accredit Love Not Condemnation, and its contents allege that our teacher preparation program and its candidates condemn individuals who choose to practice homosexual behavior. That information is both inflammatory, patently inaccurate, and appears to be based on a cursory reading of our Community Covenant and an ignoring of our Conceptual Framework. It seems that if the author of this flyer had a significant concern regarding our teacher preparation program, the appropriate action would have been to speak with us directly. The surreptitious distribution of the flyer was an unprofessional act that reflects poorly on the author of this flyer, you as signatory, your institution, and IACTE.

First, the Community Covenant is a statement of beliefs and behaviors to which participants in this voluntary community agree to adhere. As a Christian community, we do have moral standards that are entailed by our commitment to the historic Christian faith. Some of these are broadly shared (e.g., viewing theft, murder, and rape as immoral), while others, such as our stance on sexual morality, are not as widely shared. Our stance on sexual morality is to affirm “chastity among the unmarried and the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman,” and to recognize that scripture condemns “sexual immorality, such as the use of pornography, premarital sex, adultery, homosexual behavior and all other sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman.” Individuals who choose to become a part of this community are expected to comply with this covenant. Those who do not agree with its tenets should have the integrity and fortitude to choose to affiliate themselves with another of the many fine universities and colleges available to them.

Second, the Community Covenant in no way condemns any individuals. Condemnation is a decision that only God can make, and any human being who is so presumptuous as to condemn another individual is not practicing true Christian humility. Our Community Covenant, among its other affirmations, calls on members of the Wheaton Community to manifest “compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, forgiveness, and supremely, love,” to “seek righteousness, mercy, and justice, particularly for the helpless and oppressed,” to “uphold the God-given worth of human beings,” and to “be people of integrity whose word can be fully trusted.” The Wheaton College Teacher Education Program, in its Conceptual Framework, clearly states, “that candidates learn to work effectively with all children and their families regardless of race, creed, religion, national origin, sexual preference (emphasis added), disabling condition, or capabilities.” Our commitment to the inherent worth of every individual is emphasized throughout our programs; and for the author of this flyer and you, as signatory, to imply otherwise, is a blatant misrepresentation of our principles.

Interestingly, the author of the flyer seems to hold precisely the biased behavior of which we are accused. By asserting that Christians who hold traditional Christian views should not be certified and that religious institutions that hold moral views should not be accredited, the author has shown a clear bias against traditional Christians and/or other religious organizations that hold views different than that of the author. By extension, the flyer then seems to imply that anyone who holds a belief different from that of a child he/she is teaching is not qualified to teach that child. For example, should only Muslim teachers be allowed to teach Muslim children; only atheistic teachers to teach atheistic children; only Christian teachers to teach Christian children; only GLBT teachers to teach GLBT children? Such a system would be both discriminatory and ridiculous.

We gladly affirm that “teachers need to be well prepared to teach all students.” We affirm with sadness that GLBT students and adults have been and are at time subject to reprehensible treatment. We affirm that all teachers, including our candidates, should respect GLBT students and GLBT family members. Our Christian belief that all individuals are created in the image and likeness of God requires no less. We also affirm that in our country, individuals, including Christians, have the right to hold and express religious views freely. We understand fully and support the fact that the public school classroom is not a forum for religious proselytization or religious instruction. The public school classroom should be a place of learning, safe for all individuals, and affirming of the worth of each and every child. That is how we prepare our teacher candidates.

In accordance with Biblical principles, we are first contacting you without notice to your respective superiors. We at Wheaton College would be more than willing to discuss this issue with your further. However, the clandestine distribution of inaccurate information is an act that cannot be ignored. We believe that you, as signatory, owe Wheaton College, IACTE, and your institution a written apology for this reckless behavior. We anxiously await your response.

On behalf of the Education Department and Wheaton College,

Andrew R. Brulle, Ed.D. Jillian N. Lederhouse, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair Associate Professor and Chair-Select
--
December 21, 2006

Dear Drs. Brulle and Lederhouse:

We received your letter, dated November 21, 2006, and while we appreciate your communication, we disagree with your interpretations. Here, we respond to the points outlined in your letter and invite you and your students to an event where we propose to continue this dialogue.

For us, and the queer youth, teachers, parents, colleagues and allies we work alongside, the Accredit Love Not Condemnation action at the Illinois Association for Colleges with Teacher Education (IACTE) was a great success. We distributed love-centered flyers and pink teacher-power buttons. These, along with our positive queer presence, countered Wheaton College’s gay-excluding policies. As importantly, we raised questions about the appropriateness of Wheaton as a meeting place for the professional organization of teacher educators in Illinois, and the importance of sexual orientation and gender identity as key aspects of diversity. We believe that IACTE should not legitimize with its presence any institution that dehumanizes and devalues lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people.

Wheaton’s “Community Covenant,” which is part of the application for admission to the college, equates “theft, murder, and rape” with “homosexual behavior.” As lesbians, educators and as citizens, we find this an insulting and dangerous comparison, and the kind of assertion that lays the ground for violence against LGBTQ people. In addition, for queer youth, families and educators, the distinction you attempt to make between identities and acts is false and cruel. Sexuality is not divisible from other aspects of our lives as workers, parents, and students; no person should have to agree to forgo loving relationships in order to be safe from hateful characterizations.

It is hard for us to understand why you think the Accredit Love Not Condemnation project shows a “clear bias against traditional Christians.” It is inspired by and grounded in the traditions of critique and resistance exemplified by many Christians at the forefront of the profession of education including Margaret Haley, organizer of the first American teacher’s union in Chicago; Myles Horton, co-founder of the Highlander Folk School who played an integral role in the labor and civil rights movements; and Paulo Freire, author of Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Outside this field, Christians have been central to worldwide movements against oppression. The list is nearly endless, but includes Harriet Tubman, John Brown, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jane Addams, Desmond Tutu, James Baldwin, Óscar A. Romero, Fannie Lou Hamer, Bayard Rustin, Cornel West, and Mel White. We claim their engaged faith traditions as our guides.

We disagree with your letter’s claim that our distribution of the Accredit Love flyers was “surreptitious.” In addition to writing our email addresses on the flyers, as your letter notes, we walked from table to table during the meeting breakfast, passing out and explaining the flyers; wore t-shirts with the same slogan; introduced ourselves to the conference and individuals; and passed out business cards. However, secrecy is a strategic tactic that is respectable and sometimes necessary—the Underground Railroad is a clear example of this—and one that should be familiar and acceptable to Wheaton, which highlights a rich history at the forefront of the abolitionist movement on its website. But, we didn’t choose secrecy for this campaign; we chose visibility to counter the shame and silencing that institutions like yours seem to prefer for queers.

We also reject your characterization of our distribution of the Accredit Love flyer as “unprofessional.” Sexual and gender minority youth are unremittingly subject to violence and hostility in public schools, and we believe it is our professional obligation to raise this issue and seek solutions with our colleagues in teacher education, despite the desire of some to suppress that dialogue. It is the responsibility of the profession of teacher education to affirm and advocate for all students, parents and teachers, including those who are queer. Advocacy requires that problems are made visible. And that is what we have attempted to do.

We regret that you found the Accredit Love Not Condemnation flyers and pledge “quite distressing.” However, imagine how we felt to discover that our profession held a meeting on a campus where every person has sworn that the expressed sexualities of LGBTQ people, including youth and teachers, are the moral equivalent of “rape and murder”? Distressed is the mildest way to describe our reactions: pain, fear, anger are more accurate. Public meetings should not be held at institutions that degrade and exclude entire classes of people.

Finally, we appreciate and accept your invitation to talk further and propose co-hosting a discussion about this topic—Tensions Between Private Beliefs and the Public Good in Teacher Education—in a public venue, with fellow teacher educators and students of education and members of LGBTQ communities. We’ve secured a site [on the campus of a public university] and a tentative date and time. We suggest that we work out other details together—who to invite, how to organize the dialogue, food or not—if you choose to participate. If not, we plan to hold the discussion anyway, and hope you will announce the event to your students and staff. In particular, we would like to invite your LGBTQ students, staff and faculty to attend.

Sincerely,

Erica Meiners Therese Quinn

Bible Bath

A clean critique.

Miss Amy performs in the bathtub, with wine, grapes, and a David and Goliath coloring book.

Miss Amy's Bible Bath lives
on youtube.com

Chicago Schools—Military In; San Francisco Schools—Military Out

On Nov. 6, 2006, Arne Duncan announced his support for 19 new schools for Chicago’s students. Twelve of the 19 will be charter schools; another three will be “contract” schools. In other words, 15 of the 19 schools will operate outside the Chicago Teachers Union and outside the community guidance of Local School Councils.

One of the planned schools is the Marine Military Academy, scheduled to open in 2007, at 145 S. Campbell. The press release announcing Duncan’s plans describes the school as “the first public Marine Junior Reserved Officer Training Corps (JROTC) high school in the nation.” In contrast, on Nov. 14, San Francisco’s Board of Education voted to eliminate JROTC programs from its schools, through a two-year phase-out. Board member Dan Kelly, who voted to remove JROTC, described it as, "basically a branding program, or a recruiting program for the military.”

The military’s discrimination against LGBT people was also a factor in the decision to ditch the program. In an opinion piece in the Chronicle, board members Kelly and Mark Sanchez explain, “The U.S. military's ‘don't ask, don't tell’ policy toward gays and lesbians prevents JROTC from employing openly gay instructors and bars openly gay students from the preferential enlistment opportunities that are among JROTC's touted benefits.”

Supporters have claimed that JROTC is popular is San Francisco. Kelly and Sanchez point out that popularity shouldn’t be the only or even primary factor in deciding what programs schools offer—the bigger pictures—equity, fairness, justice—also have to be considered. Popular doesn’t equal appropriate, they say.

The claim of popularity may be more hyperbole than truth—San Francisco students formed an independent movement to oust JROTC from their high schools this year, and gathered more than 800 signatures on a petition supporting their position.

What do JROTC programs offer students? Spiffy uniforms, structure, a group, and the promise of help getting through college (if you aren’t queer). San Francisco plans to develop and pilot new programs next year, to address what the city’s families and students will miss when JROTC is gone.

I encourage the city to consider these ideas for its schools:

--Have students design their own uniforms, after exploring the forms and functions of uniforms from the past and present (this idea from fabulous SAIC art educator Maya Escobar; look at uniforms by artist Andrea Zittel and the exhibit RN by Mark Dion and J. Morgan Puett).

--Develop some “secret” clubs that are, conversely, open to all. These should have handshakes, special names (the blue-birds? the spiders?), marching bands and songs, drill teams with pink batons (this idea from every gay pride parade I’ve attended), and weekly meetings with games and snacks.

--Stock every school with art supplies, from kilns and clay and easels and paint, to design software and computers, and keep all the art rooms open and staffed until 9:00 PM.

--Offer scholarships to all students who want post-secondary education.

That would probably end any remaining JROTC-lust in our schools.

Now the question is—can Chicagoans follow the lead of San Franciscans and excise the military from our public schools? Our students need a chance to develop their creativity and critical thinking, not their obedience. And they need to know they can go on to college.

The Chicagoland Coalition Opposing Militarization of Youth has formed a working group to begin exploring the possibilities for opposing the planned Marine Academy. If you are interested in helping with this, contact Neal at NealBetty@aol.com.

Public Military Schools or Jazz in Every Auditorium

Last year this letter objecting to the imposition of a naval academy on a public high school, signed by more than 50 area faculty of education, was sent to Arne Duncan (CEO of CPS), Daley (Mayor of Chicago), and the Chicago Board of Education. No answer to date.

Chicago already has the most militarized public school system in the nation, perhaps the world--10,000 students from middle school through high school participate in some form of military-focused education. And the city is planning more links between the military and the Chicago Public Schools. Daley and Duncan use "choice" as a mantra when talking about military schools, but what meaning does choice have in a school system built around "good" selective admission schools that accept only the smallest % of applicants and military schools that market themselves, and are marketed by CPS, as options for those rejected by their first choice schools.

As to the "military schools provide discipline" pitch--so would true engagement in the visual arts, literature, music and the sciences. And the kind of discipline developed through the humanities, arts and sciences is a different kind than the military develops or wants. Writers and other artists grow toward self-discipline and self-motivation; they learn to be inspired by their own curiosities, intuition, and observations. Ditto scientists. In contrast, what the military aims to foster is obedience.

When Daley offers military schools and uniforms, let's ask for arts academies and sewing machines (the students can design and sew their own uniforms!). The best schools in the world are Finnish, according to The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Finnish elementary school students learn to sew and knit in their art classes.

When Duncan says our children need the routine and order of JROTC drills, let's ask for trumpets, drums, flutes, clarinets, and pianos, and a jazz band for every school. School band practice is at least as disciplinary as military marching, and less damaging world-wide.

February 4, 2005

Dear Arne Duncan, Mayor Daley, and Members of the Chicago Board of Education:

On December 15th 2004 Chicago’s Board of Education voted to approve the establishment of a “Naval Academy” in Senn High School located in Chicago’s Edgewater community. One of Chicago’s most diverse schools, Senn is home to 1,700 students from more than 65 countries. Good things have been happening at this neighborhood institution—Senn has a successful International Baccalaureate Diploma Program, was recently awarded a five-year $1.2 million grant from the Lloyd A. Fry Foundation to provide development and support services to freshmen and sophomores, and was selected as one of only 16 National Service-Learning Leader Schools.

Despite these and other successes, against the wishes of many Senn teachers, students, and parents, and without a process for community consultation, you decided to install a Naval Academy at Senn High School in fall 2005.

There are many reasons to oppose this decision. The lack of neighborhood involvement is one: It is simply wrong to remake this school without considering community voices and vision. The apparent hypocrisy of city leaders is another: How can the city endorse the military for Chicago Public School students when the Chicago City Council has declared the city a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone and voted to reject the invasion of Iraq and the U.S. Patriot Act? And, as educators, we oppose the proposed Naval Academy, because it and other military academies offer:

--Bad education
The evidence is overwhelming that urban military-themed schools fail to provide a high quality education that prepares youth to graduate high school and enter college. Instead of receiving a well-rounded education, students study subjects like “Military Science” and “Army Customs and Courtesies.” With that kind of preparation, is it a surprise that at Chicago’s Carver Military Academy, similar in structure to the proposed Naval Academy, only 54% of students graduate high school, and only 34% of graduating seniors enter college?

--Racial targeting
The pattern is clear: The Chicago Board of Education targets low-income, primarily African American, communities for military-themed high schools. Schools for the elite, such as Northside College Prep, are not forced to house military programs. Instead, these schools and their upper-income white communities are offered gifted, magnet, and college prep schools and programs. Imposing a Naval Academy at Senn will reinforce this negative and unfortunately familiar message: poor youth of color merit substandard education.

--Sanctioned discrimination
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is not acceptable for Chicago’s gay, lesbian. bisexual and transgendered youth. Although the Chicago Board of Education, City of Chicago, Cook County, and the State of Illinois all prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, the United States Military condones discrimination against sexual minorities. Military schools are partnerships between the United States Armed Services and Chicago Public Schools; like San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, Chicago should refuse to allow the military to recruit in its public schools, and refuse to do business with organizations that discriminate against its citizens.

Chicago must provide high quality education equally to all its youth and communities. The racially targeted establishment of military-themed schools is wrong in every case. But in a time of seemingly boundless budgets for endless war it is especially fraught to tell poor kids, “The best education we can offer you is one linked to combat.” This is not a “choice,” as Arne Duncan has referred to the proposed Naval Academy, it is a tragedy.

As faculty in colleges and programs of education across Chicago, we know this city can do better. And it must.

Sincerely,

1. Ken Addison, Northeastern Illinois University; 2. William Ayers, University of Illinois at Chicago; 3. Megan Bangs, Northwestern University; 4. Paula Baron, Northeastern Illinois University; 5. Amy Blumenthal, Oakton Community College; 6. Bonnie Chauncey, Northeastern Illinois University; 7. Pauline Clardy, National-Louis University; 8. Nell Cobb, DePaul University; 9. Jennifer Cohen, DePaul University; 10. Chuck Cole, University of Illinois at Chicago; 11. Dionne Danns, University of Illinois at Chicago; 12. Steve Dundis, Northeastern Illinois University; 13. Sarah Efron, National-Louis University; 14. Michael Fagen, Northeastern Illinois University; 15. Susan Gabel, National-Louis University; 16. Joby Gardner, DePaul University; 17. Artin Göncü, University of Illinois at Chicagol 18. Eric (Rico) Gutstein, University of Illinois at Chicago; 19. Lisa Hochtritt, The School of the Art Institute of Chicago; 20. Stacey Horn, University of Illinois at Chicago; 21. Ed Hunt, Northeastern Illinois University; 22. Sue Jungck, National-Louis University; 23. Sy Karlin, National-Louis University; 24. Jeffrey Kuzmic, DePaul University; 25. Eva Lam, Northwestern University; 26. Pauline Lipman, DePaul University; 27. Norma Lopez-Reyna, University of Illinois at Chicago; 28. Sharon McNeely, Northeastern Illinois University; 29. Erica Meiners, Northeastern Illinois University; 30. Gregory Michie, National-Louis University; 31. Karen Monkman, DePaul University; 32. Christopher Murray, DePaul University; 33. April Nauman, Northeastern Illinois University; 34. Irma Olmedo, University of Illinois at Chicago; 35. Roger Passman, Northeastern Illinois University; 36. Patricia Pelletier, The School of the Art Institute of Chicago; 37. Jan Perney, National-Louis University; 38. John Ploof, The School of the Art Institute of Chicago; 39. Todd Price, National-Louis University; 40. Therese Quinn, The School of the Art Institute of Chicago; 41. Patrick Roberts, National-Louis University; 42. tammy ko robinson, The School of the Art Institute of Chicago; 43. Kenneth Saltman, DePaul University; 44. Bill Schubert, University of Illinois at Chicago; 45. Brian Schultz, National-Louis University; 46. Katherine Schuster, Oakton Community College; 47. Katy Smith, Northeastern Illinois University; 48. Terry Stirling, Northeastern Illinois University; 49. David Stovall, University of Illinois at Chicago; 50. Joaquim Villegas, Northeastern Illinois University; 51. Pat Walsh, Northeastern Illinois University; 52. Steve Wolk, Northeastern Illinois University; 53. Christopher Worthman, DePaul University

Accredit Love Not Condemnation

My colleague, Erica Meiners, and I attended the Illinois Association for Colleges for Teacher Education on Friday the 13th of October. The conference was held at Wheaton College (apropos the date?), and its conveners opened the event with a prayer (it was a public event, so why the coercive calls to Jesus?--a moment of silence would have been more respectful of the diverse attendees' views). We hoped that many of the folks attending would accept a hot pink button (fist in apple--power to the teachers!), and that even more would sign the Accredit Love Not Condemnation Pledge (we are asking that only teacher education programs that promote love and respect for lesbian and gay students, families, and community members, be accredited; see previous post for more about the pledge and to read about teacher education programs that endorse condemnation, rather than love). The buttons were more popular than the pledge, though. We collected three of these (thanks, friends). The best part of the conference--meeting our fellow queer educators (yes, Wheaton--there were many of us "condemned" ones on your campus that day). Worst? That's a toss-up--maybe that so many people wouldn't make eye contact with me (making it so damn hard to cruise...oh!...that's what they were afraid of!); maybe that there's a building named after Billy ("this [Jewish] stranglehold has got to be broken") Graham; maybe that we saw a car in the parking lot with "disabled person" plates and a bumper sticker proclaiming "No Civil Rights Without Citizenship"; maybe that a sister passed her signed pledge to Erica in the women's bathroom (but again, thank you); maybe that Sharon Robinson, the President (and CEO--odd?) of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, and a featured speaker, wouldn't say that sexual orientation should be an aspect of diversity that is addressed in all teacher education programs. With love, of course, not condemnation! Well, we plan to attend the spring meeting of the group in greater numbers and with more and better props (but please...not at Wheaton). Care to join us?

The Alchemy of Wheaton College

It turns freshmen into bigots.

Bigot:
A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

A few young people might enter college with their “faith and views” fully formed, but it’s probably safe to say most do not—they come to school with some history and plenty of room to learn. College is for that.

Higher education invites us to stretch, to experience new things and to look at familiar things in new ways. We get a chance to expand and grow.

But Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, is different. It, like a number of other private religious colleges, requires students to demonstrate, even before they enter the school, that they are bigots. Wheaton does this by requiring applicants to sign a “Community Covenant” in agreement with a statement that condemns “homosexual behavior.” They may be trying to sidestep the implication that they are condemning any actual people (love the sinner, hate the sin!), but that’s crap—we are our sexualities, just as we are our genders and our ethnicities. We are more than those, of course; we can never be reduced to just those qualities, but we are also fully ALL those qualities.

Download an application to read the condemning statement yourself at:

http://www.wheaton.edu/admissions/UndGrad/applying/forms.php4#cas

It’s a shame that any college demands professions of bigotry from young people. A “dirty shame,” John Waters might say. It’s awful that a college requires students to prove their prejudice as a prerequisite to admission. Alchemists aimed to produce gold from base metal. Higher education should, too. But Wheaton engages in reverse alchemy—it produces condemnation, not kindness.

Most citizens could just ignore this situation, if Wheaton weren’t also in the business of producing teachers for our public schools. That’s right, the teachers Wheaton graduates—who have sworn that they condemn lesbian, gay, and bisexual children and families—can teach in public schools. Wheaton’s teacher education programs are accredited—legitimated—by the Illinois State Board of Education, which says teachers should be able to “help all students learn.” But how can teachers educate those they condemn?

If you read my last post you know that the population of gay students is large—as one example, in 2003, 6.3 % of high school students attending Chicago Public Schools identified their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Schools are uncomfortable, even dangerous, for these students—64.3% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students in 2005 reported feeling unsafe in their school because of their sexual orientation. And many teachers are part of the problem—40.5% of LGBT students in 2005 reported that teachers never intervened when hearing homophobic remarks. Schools are hard on LGBT young people. Colleges like Wheaton make the situation worse.

Wheaton is responsible for the suffering of LGBT youth in schools, and so is the Illinois State Board of Education, which accredits the College’s teacher education programs and certifies Wheaton’s teacher candidates, indicating that they are fit to teach in public schools. But they are not. Teachers who condemn their own students, or their students’ families, on the basis of sexual identity do not belong in public education.

The Illinois State Board of Education should stop accrediting the teacher education programs of colleges that require students to be bigots, and should stop certifying teachers who have agreed to condemn people they will inevitably teach. This isn’t a small problem; in Illinois alone there are several such schools. Greenville College is another example. Download its application and read the “Lifestyle Statement” which condemns homosexuals and dancing at:

http://www.greenville.edu/admissions/application/application.shtml

It’s a grim “lifestyle” outlined here, steeped in fear and privation. Yet, Greenville is accredited and its teachers are certified by the State. But these teachers are not fit for public schools. Wheaton and Greenville’s graduates can teach in private schools—they don’t need certification for that. Our public schools deserve teachers who pledge and demonstrate love and respect for all youth.

To that end, I’m offering every teacher educator and teacher candidate at Wheaton and Greenville (and any similar colleges, including Olivet Nazarene and Judson—you know who you are) a chance, here and now, to retract your vows of condemnation and offer a positive pledge of respect and responsibility, thereby “fitting” yourself for public school teaching. In fact, I invite everyone to take this pledge:

Teachers need to be well prepared to teach all students. Teacher education programs should support candidates by preparing them with the information and experiences they will need to teach and work with LGBT youth and family members. All teachers are responsible for gaining the education they need to teach and advocate for the well-being of LGBT students. All teachers should respect LGBT students, LGBT family members, and the identities and histories of LGBT people in classrooms and elsewhere. I pledge to do so myself. This retracts any earlier statements to the contrary. Sincerely,_____________

Email the signed retraction to the Chair of your Department or Program (at Wheaton, it’s Andrew Brulle at andrew.brulle@wheaton.edu; at Greenville it’s Edwin Blue at edblue@greenville.edu) and cc: it to me at tquinn@saic.edu.

Missing Schools: Riis, 2006

This near west-side Chicago school--Jacob A. Riis Elementary, named after the photojournalist of tenements--was recently shut down.

Discussion about this and other school closings wasn't encouraged by Chicago Public School officials, but citizens speak, anyway.

Riis was a casualty of the city's "Renaissance 2010" plan to close 100 public community schools (CT union) and open 100 performance (CT union), charter (non-CT union), and contract schools (non-CT union). While remaking neighborhoods (Ren 2010 boosts real estate profits--it's a gentrification project), the city is also re-making the labor of education; the good middle-class teaching job, once something to hold onto, is morphing into a temp-job model. Today teachers hop from school to school; charters have high turnover rates and often burnt-out staffs (without a union, the work-day is as long as the principal--or CEO--says it is). It's a sad condition for what was once a strong union town, where workers fought and died to gain the eight hour day.

Social Justice is Always In

Why is a teacher education accrediting organization trying to push it out?

In June 2006 the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) backed away from “social justice.” The organization sets the standards for teacher education programs nationwide. Social justice had been included as an example in the Program Standards glossary definition of “Disposition” (as in, what kind of dispositions should a teacher have?). But this must have ruffled some feathers—Arthur Wise, NCATE President, wrote in his obfuscating “Statement from NCATE on Professional Dispositions,” posted June 16 on the NCATE website (http://www.ncate.org/public/0616_MessageAWise.asp?ch=150) “Critics incorrectly alleged that NCATE has a ‘social justice’ requirement. It does not.”

But it should. All teachers, indeed all citizens, should be disposed towards justice.

The rest of Wise’s statement blah blahs around the heart of the issue—NCATE has revised its definition of “Dispositions” (now called “Professional Dispositions”) and removed the offending phrase. Social justice—fairness, equity, access—is out. You won’t hear this directly from Wise, though; you can only find it out by burrowing into the website until you locate a link to download the proposed revisions, where you read the new, presumably less threatening definition, which doesn’t offer any specifics at all. What kind of teachers do we need today? This “leadership” organization doesn’t offer any ideas.

Something else is missing from the main text of the newly revised Professional Standards—any mention of sexual orientation. As with social justice, “sexual orientation” had been, and still will be present in the Glossary, this time as part of the definition of “Diversity.” But the proposed revisions now direct readers to look at the rubrics for each standard to see which types of diversity to consider when planning or assessing teacher education programs. Turn to Standard Four: Diversity, and there are listed many important groups to which students and families are linked, including: English language learners, gender, ethnic and racial, students with exceptionalities, and more. Absent? Sexual orientation. Also absent, as it always has been from any part of NCATE’s Standards is gender identity.

On September 29, 2006 a letter signed by 193 individuals working in the field of teacher education was sent to NCATE. It called on the organization to establish social justice, sexual orientation, and gender identity within the main text of Standard Four: Diversity. If you agree, send a note saying so to Art@ncate.org.

The letter, as sent to NCATE, is pasted below (minus the 16 pages of signatures). To sign on, send me your name, title, and affiliation at tquinn@saic.edu:

September 29, 2006

Dear Arthur Wise, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE):

We call for the language “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to be included in the main text of Standard Four: Diversity in the Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Schools, Colleges, and Departments of Education, 2006. As NCATE already acknowledges, teachers must be prepared for diversity in education, in their students, in their students’ parents and families, among their teaching colleagues, as well as in class materials and discussions. Sexual orientation is a key part of diversity, as understood by our institutions and communities and as represented in the NCATE definition of diversity . But the absence of sexual orientation and gender identity in the body of the standards, where other aspects of diversity are listed, sends the message that the needs and identities of LGBT students, families, and teachers are not important.

The following statistics indicate that addressing sexual orientation (a person’s emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction) and gender identity (a person’s sense of being male or female, feminine or masculine) in our schools is urgent :

The population of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is large.
In a 2003 survey conducted by the Chicago Public Schools and the Center for Disease Control (the Youth Risk Behavior Survey) 6.3 % of high school students attending Chicago Public Schools identified their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Schools are unsafe for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth.
According to the 2005 School Climate Report conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN):
--75.4% of LGBT students reported hearing remarks such as "faggot" or "dyke" frequently or often.
--89.2% reported hearing the expressions, “that’s so gay” or “you’re so gay” often or frequently at school, and 67.1% reported that hearing “gay” or “queer” used in a derogatory manner caused them to feel bothered or distressed.
--64.3% reported feeling unsafe in their school because of their sexual orientation.
--45.5% reported being verbally harassed and 26.1% had experienced physical harassment in school because of their gender expression.
--40.5% reported that teachers never intervened when hearing homophobic remarks.
--18.6% reported hearing homophobic remarks from faculty or school staff frequently or often.

Negative school climates affect LGBT youths’ well-being and academic success.
According to the 2001 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey, LGBT students are more likely than the general student population to:
--attempt suicide (32.7% vs. 8.7%),
--skip school because they feel unsafe (17.7% vs. 7.8%).

Teachers are ill-equipped to confront issues that contribute to anti-LGBT hostility.
--81.7% of LGBT students reported that they had never learned about LGBT people, history, or events in any of their school classes (2005, School Climate Report, GLSEN).
--In a study of pre-service teachers, 57% indicated that they needed more training or education to work effectively with LGBT youth and 65% reported that they needed more specific education to address homosexuality in their teaching (Koch, 2000).
--In a study of high school health teachers, two-thirds indicated that they had inadequate education about LGBT issues (Telljohann, Price, Poureslami, Easton, 1995).

Hostile schools and poorly informed, prejudiced educators clearly harm LGBT youth, but all students are hurt by homophobia and heterosexism in schools, including those with LGBT family members and those identified by others as acting outside traditional gender norms. Teachers must be able to create learning environments in which all children can be successful. All teachers must learn to:

--Create safe learning spaces
--Address anti-LGBT bullying and harassment in the classroom and school
--Communicate with all parents, including LGBT parents
--Teach students to respect the rights of others and coexist in a diverse world

Sexual orientation has never been part of the main text of NCATE’s Professional Standards, but its inclusion in the glossary has encouraged educators to use NCATE’s definition of diversity when planning how best to create and assess educational programs for teacher candidates. The proposed revisions direct readers to look at each standard for the elements of “diversity” to consider when creating and assessing teacher education programs. But sexual orientation is not included in any of the rubrics for any of the standards. This decreases the possibility that teacher education programs will include sexual orientation. Gender identity is similarly absent. Sexual orientation and gender identity should be stated explicitly in the main text of the Standard Four: Diversity, along with other categories like race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Absence sends a message of non-importance.

Social justice, when used as a guiding principle, encourages recognition and inclusion; it seeks the presence of all community members. NCATE discredited its commitment to “help all students learn,” when it removed social justice from the glossary of the Professional Standards. The elimination of social justice makes it even easier to marginalize sexual orientation and gender identity. And the elimination of the words “social justice”prompts the question: Who will be excluded next?

Luckily, examples of organizations that have taken ethical positions abound. Ontario’s teacher accrediting organization vows that its members will “model respect for…social justice.” The accrediting bodies of other professions, including the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychological Association, and the American Bar Association, have explicit commitments to social justice and queer rights in their accrediting requirements. NCATE should, also.

Educators of conscience call on NCATE to establish and prioritize sexual orientation, gender identity and social justice within our Standards.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned