Rachel Levy asks whether it is appropriate for education leaders to curse or use sexual analogies in public.
Apparently, David Coleman, the newly installed president of the College Board, used a certain four-letter word at a recent Brookings conference on testing. This was not the first time this particular barnyard epithet has escaped Mr. Coleman’s lips.
And the recently departed state commissioner of education in Florida referred to test anxiety as being comparable to the anxiety associated with sexual intercourse.
Rachel is aware that I do not permit cursing on this site, at least not when it can be avoided (that is, you will not read me using expletives). I may curse in private. I may curse in my head. But I think it is rude and uncivil to curse in public. It is also childish and uncivil to make public remarks that belong in the locker room or some other non-public space.
Breaking the bounds of appropriate behavior contributes to the coarsening of our culture.
But that’s just me.
ADDENDUM: I just saw on Susan Ohanian’s blog that David Coleman used the F-word in addition to the barnyard epithet. Was that necessary? Does he think he shows his devotion to elevating civil discourse and education quality by sprinkling epithets through his comments?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
If cursing were the worst of Coleman’s vices, the world would be a better place. Wait until they start closing schools based on test scores caused by the utterly untested Common Core.
Touche!!!
And that is the plan, isn’t it? Our governor was barely able to conceal his glee when he was describing how bad the scores will be – even in the suburbs – when CCSS comes fully on line.
So it is now official. This is an assessment plan for teachers and students and another vehicle for closing schools.
I agree with the post. In my mind, common courtesy to others includes not cursing in public.
I listened to Coleman a number of times, both on webinars and in person, his use of a “barnyard expletive” is an attention getter, and it succceeds. In a 30-45 minute presentation you tend to remember his one comment emphasized by the expletive. And, yes, Coleman is correct, in too many classrooms teachers tend to teach down to the ability level of their students, whether simply establishing a set of standards will change the way teachers teach and students learn is to be determined.
Exactly how does Coleman know that “too many teacher’s teach down to the ability level of their students”? That statement alone is absurd on its face and shows how little he understands education and learning happens within a developmental framework.
Right!
Exactly what I was going to say. Holy smokes, this is like Ed. Psych. 101. Doesn’t this guy no anything about teaching?
So is Coleman teaching down to his audiences when he practices his swear words like a fourth grade boy? (I think that is about the time they start gathering in little gaggles to try out their new vocabulary.)
hahaha! 4-yr-olds try out cursing, too. So, I’d guess Coleman’s social-emotional developmental level to be between 4 yrs & 10 yrs of age.
One more thing. The notion that the mere presence of standards will influence teacher and learner behavior is nothing short of science fiction. Standards are inanimate. Teachers and their students have a give & take relationship in which the teacher’s responses are determined by the student’s responses. If a child is 12 years old but has an 8 yr old language comprehension level, teachers have to scaffold information at an 8 yr old level and build up from there. The rate at which the child progresses has NOTHING to do with a simple “standard.” Standards won’t change that FACT.
It’s like saying a hospital building will improve medical care. Humans effect the quality of care not the building. The type and quality of care depends on the type of illness and how the medical personnel respond to it.
But, then the edu-reformers don’t care about facts, or research, or children. They’ve created their own version of reality and are selling it to an unsuspecting public.
So well thought out –
Perhaps we could rewrite the laws of physics and see if the universe shows “growth”.
@mets2006 You have not answered my question: Exactly how does Coleman know that “too many teacher’s teach down to the ability level of their students”?
Full references required with data required.
These people want to “lead” us? God help us!
I can appreciate the irony of your comment.
I remember one time one of my high school students was swearing. Another student turned to him and said that swearing was “nothing more than a weak mind attempting to express itself forcefully.”
I don’t think Coleman has a weak mind, but CCSS certainly is weak.
Highly effective when said student to student. I admire that student who spoke up.
“Breaking the bounds of appropriate behavior contributes to the coarsening of our culture.
But that’s just me.”
That makes two of us. I have recently been using and teaching the meaning of the word “civility” to my precious little people. Why? – because there is so little of it in their lives and I want them to recognize it when they experience it.
Bullies tend to speak this way as a form of intimidation. Not once in over 30 years of teaching in the public school system did I hear a principal or superintendent speak so unprofessional. But then, these individuals had character and morals.
I think of this as the Christie effect: sounding like their image of the regular guy by cursing or name-callling. These guys like Coleman, who are so far removed from the concerns of parents and students in public schools, use this embarrassingly phony way of trying to appear credible.
In some ways, I think our culture could use coarsening. I’m not saying teachers should go around with no filters in the classroom, and certainly students and educators shouldn’t be using epithets which demean groups of people based on all of the things that have been used as excuses to keep people out of the conversation, but some honesty and reality can refresh conversation at times. (I’m not trying to defend the particular example you bring up– just trying to pose an alternate viewpoint.) Many times, politeness hides a world of sins. Sometimes, when those veneers fall we see what progress we’ve really made (or not).
The other devil’s advocate point I would like to make is that while children are children, teachers are adults, and if we think about a “perfect” public veneer we would prefer to see in our teachers, it is hugely confining. Then we become like politicians. Honest question: Should that be our role? Or should we be allowed to be our authentic selves with our students? If we teach for creativity and for each child to find his/her authentic medium of expression and ideal set of experiences to reach his/her potential, what implications does that have for us as teachers in terms of the type of persona we present publicly? If our blogs are filled with puritanically sparkling “teacher-esque” thoughts and images, what message does that send students about how they should present themselves at school? When students develop too polished of a student veneer, they may be denying creative potential that is under that veneer that could lead to true greatness. (Remember that book “Doing School”?) When our lives become an extension of some kind of McCarthy-era, Puritan manufactured reality of manners and propriety, are we teaching students how to become themselves? How can there be room for teachers to be true artists if we are so, so limited in how we are permitted to express ourselves? How can students feel safe to bring their true selves into the classroom when teachers and leaders are censored?
That being said, I think it’s a much different dynamic depending on what age of children we teach. Also, I understand it’s WAY more complicated than this.
Believe it or not, students notice how their teachers talk and it does not enhance your standing as a teacher when you use vocabulary better suited to more private settings. I was surprised to find out my very streetwise students cared that I didn’t swear when they misheard a word I used. When I repeated what I said, there was a sigh of almost relief. They were proud of me for setting an example. They certainly did not find me any less genuine because I didn’t pepper my conversation with four letter words.
From Sue O’s blog, this was one quote
. . .I think PARRC is doing some beautiful work. . . to design assessments that seriously recognize two ideas: One is that assessment is an extremely powerful signal for instruction but you gotta own it. Cut the shit when you like “ooh we wrote this test and all these people are doing test preparation. They shouldn’t be doing test prep; they should look at the standards.”
I mean is it a perfect life? F*** you. NO! I hate that disingenuousness. If you put something on an assessment in my view you are ethically obligated to take responsibility that kids will practice it 100 times. . . .
It is more than his awful language….it is his total derision to anyone who disagrees with his ideas. His response, is F you. This is not cute. It is arrogant and destructive.
What strikes me is the inconsistency. In the first part he says you shouldn’t be doing test prep. In the second part he says you should practice things 100 times if they are going to be on the test. Pardon my Colemanese, but WTF?!
OMG. Does Coleman not comprehend the purposes of assessment, the multiple kinds of assessment, and appropriate uses for assessment? Clearly not. His right hand says “don’t teach to the test!” and his left hand says “teach to the test!”.
Why do we need to be politically correct? Sometimes an action or person deserves it.
Oh stop it. Having trespect for an audience at a professional setting is not being politically correct. It is being civilized. What will Coleman do next, ‘moon’ them?
I respect your decision not to use expletives on this site Dr. Ravitch. Doing so would undermine your arguments. “Leaders” who would speak this way at a public conference show a lack of judgement and class.
In the corporate cultures I have passed through, foul language is a dominance signalling mechanism for (almost entirely white male) higher level executives, equivalent to poo flinging. He is telling audiences he’s the big alpha.
“He is telling audiences he’s the big alpha.”
That’s it!! Perfect! King of the playground.
poo flinging. very effective image for corporate alphas
I was actually fired from an executive position for not using foul language. The boss called me into his office and canned me because my “communication style” was “too nonverbal.” I asked what he meant by that, since I wasn’t in the habit of using hand gestures or pictographs at work. His reply was that he had never heard me swear at any of my subordinates and that meant I was not good management material.
I made sure to swear at him on the way out of the office.
Belly deep chuckle.
“Do you ever curse Mr. M?” my students ask. Yes, alone at night, in my car with the radio turned up, I might let a choice word slip out, Part of being a teacher, parent, and an adult, you see.
Not that I have a choice. Teachers are held to pretty high standard–in and out of the classroom. Perhaps if I became governor (of NJ), or an education reformer/hedge fund guy (also from NJ), I wouldn’t have to watch my diction.
Diane, thanks for your stand on this. We can at least be careful when discussing education! I hope some of the great bloggers that you link to take note!
This shows how suited this guy is to dictating how to teach K-12.
Well said
Jerry Seinfeld is among the most talented, successful, and respected comedians of our generation. He has had a remarkable career performing live in public and on television, and he managed to accomplish it all while maintaining a clean act. Once, when asked why he didn’t use profanity as many other performers tend to do, he said:
“Most of the time, when you hear the dirty words sprinkled in, it’s someone who’s lost and scared and uses swearing to save their tail.”
Another way to look at it.
Coleman’s language was appropriate for the people he was talking for and to, i.e., those who believe in and are trying to bring about a country where an enriched quality education for the few and low-level skills/compliance training for the many will become an accepted reality.
Thankfully this blog, and many of those who post here, are pushing back against the country he is trying to “socially engineer” [Newt Gingrich comes in handy sometimes!].
Consider: do you think the folks whose children are in Cranbrook and Sidwell Friends and Chicago Lab Schools would put up with school staff talking like Coleman when their children can hear? Of course not. But would some of those folks talk to, and about, their “subordinates” like that? That is, teachers, administrators, support staff? Well, remember how Rhee and Klein and Rahm and the rest of the edubullies talk about those who staff public schools.
To paraphrase Forrest Gump: contemptuous is as contemptuous does. He clearly doesn’t respect the vast majority of us. But he is just reflecting the circles he runs in. No need for us to imitate their bad manners and bad language.
I don’t know if this extends to the private day schools as well but the boarding school girls at my college had the most foul mouths.
Too funny. Boarding school was where I learned to use profanity – think Holden Caulfield. I would never have done it at home! I waited until college to learn to smoke. Fortunately I practice restraint on the first vice and gave the other up over 30 years ago. We all have the potential to change, nothing, not even the circumstances of birth is set in stone. That is why we teach.
This is what David Coleman actually said, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu6lin88YXU, I thought it was an effective way of making his point, it is distubing that clearly many commenters are not familiar with Coleman, you may ultimately agree or disagree, his “deep reading” analysis of Martin Luther King’s Birimingham Jail speech is worthwhile listening to and reflecting upon. Simply denigrating Coleman without listening to his arguments is both unprofessional and unhelpful to the dialogue.
How do YOU know we didn’t already listen to it?
You are assuming and that is unprofessional and unhelpful.
Do not preach…we have too much of that and that IS the problem.
Everyone on this thread has been to or given professional presentations. We understand arguments and analyses of educational practices so don’t lecture us about professional dialogue.
Generating discourse is not how Coleman presents his product, e.g., Common Core. Rather, he appears to be trying to sell snake oil. Oh, wait…
I am quite familiar with his ‘deep reading’. On any given day, in any classroom in my high school, the instruction is mich better. David Coleman is a legend in his own mind.
Carol,
I am presently reading and studying Opening the Common Core: How to bring all students to college and career readiness.
It has been very helpful and I am more diligent when incorporating the ACES principles into my 7th grade language arts classes.
I think we now have the answer to your closer: “If the Common Core Standards stay true to this guiding principle (prepare all students) and NOT become ensnared in testing, then it will stay true to the principles of the Committee of Ten and their democratic ideals.”
Unfortunately, this most likely will boil down to a teacher and student assessment program and another method of closing more public
schools, which may have been one of the intended purposes. However, one which needed to be kept secret.
This seems to be the trend among our elites. Think of Rham Emanuel’s language and digital gestures while a senator and Obama’s Chief of Staff. Susan Rice, our ambassador to UN and Obama’s pick for Secretary of State, has been reported to “flip the bird” at meetings. Sexually aggressive language is part and parcel on Wall Street.
Our discourse has devolved steadily over the decades, as we abandoned the idea of culture for counter-culture (now the “ghetto nation”) that is marketed to us all hours of the day.
We are falling like Rome, only the barbarians are coming from within.
I appreciate the no-cursing policy of yours Diane. Some blogs are written like a Chris Rock monologue. Anyway, with the resulting curriculum changes in classes across America, the ratcheting up of tests, the ensuing stress felt throughout schools, the firing of teachers and the closing of schools as a result, I ‘m willing to venture that they’ll be a lot more cursing. Not only by ‘pretend’ leaders like Coleman, but also by real leaders: teachers, parents and students. Especially, when they find out Dave’s background in education (non-existent) and Bill Gates funding of another unproven non- researched based educational ???? (I can’t think of a descriptor.) I can’t wait for the push-back to begin.
The use of the f-word signals, I believe, Coleman’s contempt for those who don’t share his views. He was attacking those who believe teachers should focus on the content of the standards rather than test prep, even though the standards themselves say that teachers should be the ones to decide how to achieve them. To me, the use of this word in this setting, a fairly formal talk on a policy subject, communicates a high degree of disrespect, much more than casual swearing in everyday life does. The only time i’ve ever used the f-word myself in a talk was to a group I knew well, in a sarcastic reference to Dick Cheney’s use of it.