A reader comments on the conflict between what reformers say and what they do:
Ironically, sometimes, what corporate sponsored “reformers” say they want is the exact opposite of what they really want.
For example, this week on Twitter, Arne Duncan was promoting student involvement in mock elections and said, “Watch the MyVoice National Mock Election 2012 PSA series, and get involved!” However, this is a man who believes in, and personally benefitted from, mayoral controlled education, which has meant recinding the democratic rights of citizens to vote for and elect their local school boards and, instead, turning education over to mayors who appoint puppet boards and Superintendents –which is how he got his job as CEO of schools in Chicago. (As rightwing ALEC promotes.) Of course, Duncan got appointed to his current position due to cronyism and a Congress that had a majority of Democrats at the time, so he really believes in voting only when it might be to his advantage (such as re-electing Obama).
Other times, what corporate sponsored “reformers” really want is deeply entangled in the language they choose to use to describe what they say they are against.
For example, Gates, Rhee and Duncan have claimed repeatedly that teachers are not “interchangable widgets”, in order to combat unions, seniority and lane and step pay schedules. However, when it comes to teaching children, they think it’s fine to use teachers as “interchangable widgets”, such as when they promote Teach for America, which has placed people like Rhee, who had a bachelor’s degree in government, in a classroom teaching 3rd graders, who are not very likely to be studying much, if anything, about government.
This TFA placement practice still exists today, according to Barbara Veltri, author of Learning on Other People’s Kids: Becoming a Teach for America Teacher,
“most corps report that they are teaching out-of-field and in Special Education classrooms, where they arrive with about 5 hours of training”
http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/category/teach-for-america/
I think the Common Core mandate on informational texts paves the way for using more teachers as “interchangable widgets” in classrooms. For example, English curriculum is likely to include reading books about people and events in history, which will make it easier to justify the placement of out of field teachers (not just TFAers), such as those with degrees in history teaching English classes –like Tony Danza.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Let’s call what the deformers say by it’s real name: lying.
What about the fact the teachers union spent 7 million dollars on parties in 2008 and has spent 10s of millions in the current election and 2010 mid-terms? What about the fact your beloved AFT President makes over $400,000 dollars a year (she’s part of the one percent!)? And why can you not respond to the research institute’s response to how you define reformers? You are clearly afraid to do so, because the truth and the people are not on your side!
I know TFA gives themselves a very limited amount of time to train people to serve as teachers, but they could at least teach TFAers about where we currently are in the historical timeline of education reform, because they act as if reform is brand new. Here’s info about 3 eras of reform over the past 20 years in Chicago, providing clear evidence that it’s reform that is the status quo and has been for a very long time:
Trends in Chicago’s Schools Across Three Eras of Reform
Click to access Trends_CPS_Full_Report.pdf
Better trolls, please.
Better TFAers, please.
One again, factual questions about reform efforts are not answered. It is one thing to try and make a point, pretending you are an expert – it is another thing to make a point and answer questions about your point. Diane and the people on this blog can not answer questions about their assertions. They instead label people and side step the issues at hand,
even when a research institute counters an argument.
Try reading.
Re: The above link provided on 3 eras of reform over 20 years:
“Chicago schools are not what they were in 1990. Graduation rates have improved tremendously, and students are more academically prepared than they were two decades ago. ACT scores have risen in recent years, and elementary math scores are almost a grade level above where they were in the early 1990s. However, average test scores remain well below levels that indicate students are likely to succeed in college.
This is not a problem that is unique to Chicago. Nationwide, the typical high school graduate does not perform at college-ready levels. Chicago students do not perform more poorly than students with similar economic and ethnic backgrounds at other schools in Illinois.” p. 78
“This report raises important questions about what how much improvement we can reasonably expect in a large system over the span of two decades.
Over the course of the three eras of school reform, a number of dramatic system-wide initiatives were enacted. But instead of bringing dramatic changes in student achievement, district-wide changes were incremental -when they occurred at all. We can identify many individual schools that made substantial, sometimes dramatic, gains over the last 20 years, but dramatic improvements across an entire system of over 600 schools are more elusive.
Past research at CCSR suggests that that the process of school improvement involves careful attention to building the core organizational supports of schools -leadership, professional capacity, parent/community involvement, school learning climate, and instruction (Bryk, et al., 2010).
Building the organizational capacity of schools takes time and is not easily mandated at the district level. Nevertheless, the extent to which the next era of school reform drives system-wide improvement will likely depend on the extent to which the next generation of reforms attends to local context and the capacity of individual schools throughout the district.” p. 79
Laura,
“. . . even when a research institute counters an argument.”
A “research institute” does not necessarily imply a lack of bias. To the contrary, many research institutes have agendas that they are pushing (and the Bush family has been pushing the privatization of education for years) The “research” is not blind peer reviewed prior to publication (or anytime afterword either) and therefore cannot be considered to be “definitive”. This type of research should be seen for what it is an advocacy for a certaing political agenda.
Duane
Duane,
Even if it were true that the research institute is bias, such as could be argued for Diane’s research, why can Diane still not respond? Whether it is bias or not, it is still a policy institute that affects laws and ideas. It seems Diane is unable to respond to all the facts with facts of her own.
Laura,
Putting this response here to better respond visually.
You stated: “Even if it were true that the research institute is bias (sic), such as could be argued for Diane’s research, why can Diane still not respond? Whether it is bias (sic) or not, it is still a policy institute that affects laws and ideas. It seems Diane is unable to respond to all the facts with facts of her own.”
So you are agreeing that the Bush institute is biased. If so I understand why Diane wouldn’t respond as it would seem to be a waste of her time, kind of like tilting at windmills.
And just because a “policy institute. . . affects laws and ideas” that fact does not give its conclusions any more validity other than opinion, which again would probably be considered to be a waste of time and effort to which to respond.
Duane
Dang, that didn’t go where I wanted, oh well!
Let’s raise the top marginal tax rate to what it was under Eisenhower, 91%. All the unions don’t have anywhere near the spending power of corporate America and the US Chamber of Commerce. Laura, are you against the free speech rights of teacher unions or any unions?
Eisenhower? That Bolshevik?
Laura,
I would like to answer your questions but I have questions about the veracity of your statements so; Can you please provide links to your statement about the “unions” spending X amount of dollars?-something that precisely breaks down/apart this spending, and can you please cite the “research institutes exact wording on how to define reformers?, and can you please link to where you came up with “the truth and the people are not on your side” because if there is no substantial research showing this then it is just an opinion to which you are entitled but it doesn’t make it true.
And I’m not sure that the AFT president is necessarily beloved, that is your statement. I would certainly question the amount of salary received by said president being appropriate.
If you respond as a new post then we can more easily continue the discussion from a visual perspective. Thanks.
Duane
The distinguishing mark of the Corporate Takeover Artists is their complete dishonesty about their real agenda.
No one would ever buy their “products” if they told people what was really in them — and they know it.
None of their prostituted politicians would ever get elected if they told the electorate what they have in mind ahead of time — and they know it.
Great point abut teachers as interchangeable widgets! The hypocrisy behind the language astounds even me. Thanks, Diane.
Wonderful to see a post by you on this blog. I am very appreciative of your efforts and the BD blog you share with Diane.
A few months ago I bought MANY CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND (2004), a critique of NCLB and education reform that includes a contribution by you. I read it in part to put you and others to the test: did you see then any of what we now see happening? Yes — y’all passed with flying colors!
You and others anticipated well in advance the [unnecessary but forced] train wreck that is becoming public education in this country. This very slim volume is a rebuke to all who would argue “How could anyone ever have seen this coming? Show me just one example of anyone, anyone at all, who foresaw our current predicament?” And not just critiques and predictions but well-founded suggestions for solving some very difficult problems.
Continue to do as you and Diane have been doing now for some years: say what you mean in a dignified manner, using direct and plain language wherever possible, and stand tall against the edubullies. Remember: many of those who denounce you do more damage to themselves and their product placements than they ever could to you and Diane.
A good commentary to counteract the deformers claim that today’s schools are worse than those in the past.
Nostesia
from Jamie Vollmer
“Millions of Americans argue, often vehemently, that today’s schools are dreadful compared to the temples of learning that existed in our golden past. In their view, we all would be better off if schools could just be the way they used to be.
These people are suffering from a debilitating mental condition that I have named nostesia: a hallucinogenic mixture of 50% nostalgia and 50% amnesia that distorts rational thinking.”
http://www.jamievollmer.com/nostesia.html
Yes, the “widget effect” is audacious rhetoric, since its entire argument is that rather than considering teachers to be interchangeable widgets of uniform quality, we should consider them interchangeable widgets of varying quality. Despite the fact that school reformers for decades considered the quality of a teacher’s performance to be highly influenced by context.
Just in terms of the bottom line, monetary remunerations, otherwise they think you can plug virtually any Yuppie with enthusiasm and limited training into every classroom.
20 years of TFA has not shown that to be the magic bullet of school reform either, but no matter, they’ve trained their alums to take over education, so 43% of Superintendent’s positions in cities were filled by TFA alumni in 2009.
Not TFA but graduates of the unaccredited Broad Academy
Diane
TFA = How to parlay slumming it as an imposter teacher for 2 years into being appointed to fill the highest paid education position
Yes, you’re right. Sorry. I was thinking of people like John White, LA Ed Superintendent, and Kevin Huffman, TN Commissioner of Ed, who are TFA alums. Maybe that needs to be parsed out and include top state education jobs?
On their website, TFA says they started their Ed Leadership Initiative in 2006 and “Currently, more than 550 Teach For America alumni serve as school leaders and superintendents in 37 states and the District of Columbia”. That’s a lot in 6 years.
CT,
Yes, it’s a lot and that also means most are probably lucky to have three years of teaching experience. Great, just what I would want, a TFA administrator that thinks he/she is hot shit who wants to show this 18 year veteran teacher how to teach better. As Bill Cosby would have said: Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggghhhhhhhtttttttttt!!!!!!!!!
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which sponsors the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) considers new teachers to be those with two years or less of experience. I don’t know why anyone would think a teacher is no longer a novice after just one year.
Yes, even three years is short — which only about half of TFAers complete. I read that MIchelle Rhee team-taught her third year. I’ve done that. It’s a whole different ballgame.
Click to access 49846857.pdf
Here in Ohio you are not considered (i.e. meeting the qualifications) for a continuing contract until you have a minimum of six years of successful classroom experience. Debate that length of time all you want, however, in the very least it far exceeds the qualifications of all TFAers. Simply, a person “completing” the TFA program can become a teacher after 5 weeks and an administrator after 2 years. Meanwhile a traditional student/teacher, such as myself, must complete 4 years of undergraduate work, 1 year of graduate work in education, pass a national teacher exam, become licensed and maintain said license through additional coursework, AND complete a review/probationary period greater than 5 years on the job before I can even be considered worthy of due process.
Over the last twenty years, I have never considered any teacher or administrator/superintendent with little to no classroom experience an expert. Consequently, I have given them little to no credence. If I am ever in need of advice, motivation, inspiration, or fresh ideas, I draw upon those who know and live this job along with every minute detail and responsibility that makes it what it is. For unlike most teaching fads coming from “experts”, they’re never wrong.
I firmly maintain the belief that in order to become an administrator, of any kind, but especially principal, a requirement of no less than 10 years of successful classroom experience must be demonstrated. In order to become a superintendent, a minimum of 20 years of successful classroom and principal experience must be demonstrated. Anyone with less than that is just a pretender.
Ironically, no such requirements and/or ”experience” exist for four of today’s most powerful decision makers: board member, reformer, Secretary of Education, politician.
As the song says, “There’s something wrong with the world today, and everybody knows it’s right.”
Henry C Hale, M Ed., NBCT
Diane, I just found info on the Broad Academy website indicating the a higher percentage figure for placement of their grads for 2011:
“Academy graduates have filled 87 superintendent positions and 107 senior school district executive positions. In 2011, 48 percent of all large urban superintendent openings were filled by Broad Academy graduates”
http://broadacademy.hellodesign.com/fellows/results.html
Five more percentage points in just two years? Do you think this figure would be only new appointments or include those continuing in positions from 2009 and earlier? Either way, it’s very alarming. (And I’d love to know how many are from TFA.)
That such credence would be given to an unaccredited training program raises a lot of concerns for me, because mayoral control often circumvents state education and experience requirements for superintendents, so no training whatsoever may be required, as was the case for Paul Vallas and Arne Duncan in Chicago. It suggests to me the training may be more about indoctrination in the Broad political agenda.
Naked Capitalism has a great essay on the real goals of the “reformers” from Wall Street and the rest of the 1%. Some comments of note:
Local tax policy used to be about education. The United States was divided into fiscal grids to finance school districts, along with roads and bus lines, water and sewer systems. Municipalities with better schools taxed their property more, but this made it more desirable to live in such districts, and thus raised rather than lowered real estate prices. This made urban improvement self-feeding. Lower-taxed districts were left behind.
This no longer is the American way. Education in particular has been demonized. California’s formerly great school system is the most visible casualty of the state’s Proposition 13, the property tax freeze enacted in 1978. The Los Angeles Apartment Owners Association employed its political front man, Howard Jarvis, as a lobbyist to promise voters that little would change by cutting back education and libraries. He claimed that “63 percent of the graduates are illiterate, anyway,” so who needed books. Education and other parts of public spending was frozen as property taxes were slashed by 57% – from 2.5 or 3% down to just 1% of assessed valuation, and were frozen at 1978 price levels for owners who have kept their property. The result is that California’s school system has plunged to 47th rank in the nation.
For neoliberals, the silver lining is that downgrading education makes citizens more susceptible to the Tea Party’s false consciousness when it comes to how to vote in their economic interest. Back when Prop. 13 was passed, for instance, commercial investors promised homeowners that across-the-board tax cuts would make housing more affordable and that rents would fall. But they rose, along with real estate prices. This is the Big Lie of neoliberal tax cutters: the promise that cutting tax will lower costs rather than provide a windfall for property owners – and also for banks as rising rental values are “free” to be capitalized into larger mortgage loans. New buyers need to pay more, raising the cost of living and doing business.
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/wall-streets-war-against-the-cities-why-bondholders-cant-and-shouldnt-be-paid.html#8UmP4zJ81mlpUuSW.99
“Silver lining”?? It’s the reason d’etre. It’s a feature, not a bug.
I think the phrase was used ironically. But either way, I agree.