A reader–a parent and teacher–writes.
Does she refer to the way that education policy is made by non-educators? Or to the reduction of education to data? Or the reduction of children to data points on a graph? Or the indifference to the developmental needs of children and adolescents? Or to the arrival of greedy for-profits into managing schools? Or the galloping privatization? Or all of the above?
|
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Clearly there are changes needed to the education system. Too many students are falling by the way side. Are charters the answer, cyber schools? Do we need to look at the structure of the school year, day? Do we need to change the delivery system we now use. I would like to see some examples of different types of schools where the education is is done differently than behind a desk. This is really an exciting time to be in education. Charters, cyber schools, privatization, Core Curriculum, reformers are all contributing to the changes that will come true in the near future. As educators, we are in the forefront of this change and can have a lasting effect on education. We must pick through all the junk and find what works and blend it into a successful education system.
LikeLike
Allow me to correct your statement:
“Charters, cyber schools, privatization, Core Curriculum, Deformers are all contributing to the DEFORMS that HOPEFULLY will NOT come true in the near future.”
LikeLike
Unfortunately, I suspect it’s all of the above.
It disturbs me that the folks who support public education and teachers are labeled in the media as “anti-reformers”. I don’t see myself that way, because I work to improve education on a daily basis, and I have no doubt that many other educators do so as well. We get that tag primarily because corporate sponsored people have hijacked the “education reform” nomenclature and that term dominates in the popular press, since they own that, too, so anyone viewed as not agreeing with their agenda is seen as “anti-reform”.
So much in education today has been defined by non-educators, in their terms, but this is OUR field, not theirs, so I think we need to be proactive in selecting terms that accurately name and define who we are.
Teachers who are life-long learners are committed to making improvements that benefit children, families, communities, and our democratic society as a whole. So, I would like to propose that such educators make suggestions here and try to come to a consensus on the words which better describe us, in positive terms.
We could also try to agree on a more accurate way to describe those who call themselves “education reformers”, since many of us struggle with that. Something along the lines of “corporate sponsored….” works for me. Cursory views of a couple thesauruses resulted in few positive synonyms for “reform”. (Are they “provocateurs”?)
Those folks have typically adopted euphemisms for propaganda purposes. We can be creative, but we must be truthful, and we need to try to avoid using negative terms to describe others. Maybe we could take back some words, too.
For example, I don’t think that people who were trained in five weeks to teach in schools for two years, or those who use militaristic methods, should be monopolizing the notion of “transforming” education. Aren’t highly trained veteran educators, who chose teaching as a career, in order to make a difference in children’s lives, and who have many strategies in their toolboxes, much more likely committed to being education transformers?
Maybe that sounds too much like a children’s toy. I need to think some more about possible positive terms. I hope others will, too, and offer suggestions, so that, collaboratively, we can make meaningful steps toward taking back our profession. Any ideas?
LikeLike
I agree Prof. We need to have a common voice to combat their privatization agenda. I like your suggestion, corporate sponsored. My husband was switching channels tonight and stopped on the Teachers Rock farse. I started complaining and was getting increasingly angry. He finally asked what all the fuss was about since all he noticed was a bunch of celebrities praising their teachers. He couldn’t understand my anger. Suddenly it dawned on me that I have been getting similar reactions from others over the summer break who fail to understand when I try to warn them of the impending doom.They don’t get it. I just sound like a complainer. My son asked why don’t I stop talking about it do something. He doesn’t understand why I would be against charters and vouchers anyway. What’s wrong with a little healthy competition? If my own family, who sees how passionate I am about my job doesn’t understand, how could I expect others to? My family at least has the courage to be honest with me.
Spending time blogging has led me to the false impression that if I could just explain the facts everyone would begin to understand what was going to happen to education. Right? …
Wrong! I had begun to feel as if we could fight this if we just stood strong and spoke the truth. But now it is becoming obvious that the big bucks have bought out our government and the media. After Diane’s CNN interview, I am afraid the nails are slowing being pounded into our coffin.
I am not ready to give up. Thanks to Diane and others’ blogs I have a place to come to that helps me renew my resolve. This community has become my rock. I don’t know how we will do it, but we have to keep speaking up and supporting each other. I just can’t imagine giving up what we have worked so hard to build. The corporate sponsors don’t deserve my students. My students deserve better.
LikeLike
“.We need to have a common voice to combat their privatization agenda.”
Exactly, Bridget! And if your own family is unclear about what’s going on and what your concerns are, which I think is not uncommon, given that corporate sponsors seem to have selected terms to confuse matters on purpose, we can only imagine what the rest of the country might be thinking.
As much as I’d prefer to stay away from using negative terms for the people promoting privatization, the truth is they ARE “corporate sponsored” provocateurs, agitators, marketers, manipulators, etc., so I think those terms are fitting for them.
If we don’t identify and define ourselves though, then we will be forever labeled as “anti-reform”, when what we really are is pro-public education for the common good, for a democratic society. So, I think we still need to select, define and adopt our own name. (Once we agree to that, I’d be willing to start a Blog page for us.)
I’ve seen so many reports in the media downplaying privatization based on the current percentage of charter schools and their differing status as non-profit vs. for-profit enterprises, rather than looking at the exponential growth of charters over the past decade and providing info about how non-profits function, that I don’t think the average person realizes how big this matter already is.
For example, Gates, Broad and Walton are the big three corporate sponsors and they are allies from both sides of the political aisle. 43% of the superintendent positions filled in 2009 in large urban school districts were trained by Broad:
http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3781
That’s huge, because those are the folks who want to eliminate elected school boards, so they and their appointed cronies can decide which public schools get shut down and turned into charters.
Also, I’ve worked enough in “non-profit’ programs to know that a 501(c)3 status is no assurance that the organization is a “charity’. Many “non-profit” charters get large contributions from corporate sponsors, much of which is used for marketing, rather than going into classrooms. The corporate sponsors themselves lobby for ALEC written legislation to assure the growth of charters. I worked at a school established by Milken that was supposedly a ‘non-profit’, but it didn’t really function that way. It was run by a “for-profit’ Milken company and people from other Milken companies stacked our board. It may have met the legal requirements of a 501(c)3, but I didn’t see much money going back into the school for instruction. That’s one way that for-profits circumvent laws In states that do not permit charters to be run by for-profits.
So the corporate sponsors are way ahead of the game now and, before our country becomes entrenched beyond repair, the word really needs to get out.
LikeLike
Wealth has often been the deciding factor in the power struggles among people, and American public education in 2012 is no different. What is different now, as opposed to, say 100 years ago is that money doesn’t control all the world’s communication. We just have to keep reaching out, using all the methods we know, to as many people as we can. It’s not impossible, though the odds are, indeed, against us.
LikeLike
“money doesn’t control all the world’s communication.”
Excellent point, Stu! Maybe we should reach out to the press in other countries, especially the UK, since Rhee brought her corporate sponsored agitation to England in June, and Pearson is going to be starting their own college there now.
LikeLike