A loyal reader thought about the way that school leaders like Kaya Henderson, Dennis Walcott, and Rahm Emanuel cheer for the side they are NOT in charge of. And he tried to imagine school reform as a basketball game.
Here goes:
The charterites/privatizers love sports analogies. Here’s one for you: you are the owner of a professional sports team, let’s say, basketball. Your main historic rival is in the same state, not far away. You hire a coach who wears that team’s jersey to televised games, refuses to dispute bad calls by the referees that favor your chief rival, and not only keeps urging you to trade away your best players so you can’t compete talentwise, he even publicly berates the outstanding players that insist on remaining [even with pay cuts] which further undermines team cohesion and effectiveness. But you ignore the many fans who can’t understand why you won’t put in a coach who will do a better job against the other team. *What the dummies who pay for season tickets can’t seem to understand is that you would hate to undermine your spouse and the other members of your family who are majority owners of that other team. Yay us!*
Substitute “mayor” for “owner” [same mentalities, though] and “superintendent” for “coach” and you begin to appreciate the dire straits of places like NYC and DC. The people calling the shots and leading the ‘public school’ team are rooting and essentially working for the other team. They aren’t interested in anything resembling a fair competition: it’s not just a hidden thumb on the scale or a little-known law that favors one side over the other, it’s doing so openly without a tinge of embarrassment or a feeling of shame. Just consider this: how can CA have a law on the books that allows astroturf organizations to organize small minorities of parents to turn public schools over to charter operators but not allow even huge majorities of parents to convert a charter into a public school?
I won’t argue that this is a perfect analogy but I would argue that it understates what public school advocates are up against.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Makes me think about Massive Online Learning Courses (MOOC). Why would institutes of higher education support MOOC’s (ego/branding?) when online schools don’t employ many teachers. Sure, it’s a business.
Which colleges are going to disappear? Colleges of education? No need for teachers.
Should we thank institutes of higher education for their innovative extinction of human teachers?
THE YEAR OF THE MOOC:
Also saw this excerpt from another story that makes me glad I have graduated from directory information to MOOC’s. Would provide link but 2 links don’t pass the filter.
[Earlier this month, Coursera, the largest provider of (MOOCs) in the United States, announced a program to verify students. The “verified certificates” from Coursera rely on photo IDs, submitted via webcam, and typing a sample phrase. The two are combined to create a biometric profile that is checked when students submit work and tests]
Students of MOOC’s are giving up their biometric identifiers?
When MOOC students transfer into universities for credit do their biometrics travel with their credits?
MOOC ALERT.
In reference to the basketball comparative it sounds more like the famous touring Harlem Globetrotters and their rival the Washington Generals. The success of
these dynamic duos is the way they execute the game. But is it basketball or
entertainment? Does it satisfy both the ticket holder for entertainment and a
sports event experience? Well, the people pay for both and at the end they get what they paid for. But they are never led to believe the game is anything but what it actually
is. The entertainment and tricks derail the basketball play and the winning score is
accepted by players and fans alike. You know infront what the outcome might be and the price of the ticket does not guarantee that you will have a good time but that you
can participate in the possibility to that end. It is not a shell game that takes your money
and you take your chances. And, more importantly, it is only a game!
Education is not a game but hopeful expectation that all participating will come away
enhanced with a learning experience which will elevate the possibility of a future and enhance the intellectual and life skills for the learner. It should meet the whole person
learning experience with an honest exposure to real time substantive learning growth.
And the satisfaction that the professional has provided the best of
their skills and efforts on behalf of the learner and the integrity of themselves and
their employer.
Right now the politics of education feels more like a shell game in that it is a free fall of throwing as much in the way of untested experimental programming (some in the guise of charter school commericial enterprise) until something sticks or not. The hype for much of it is wrapped around public relations language along with unproven designs of learning and a step up and buy your ticket to an unsuspecting public/suckers at their own risk. Worse! Is that it can damage the very foundation by which our public education system has thrived. There is more integrity and honesty offered by the
Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals when you pay for a ticket!
And make no mistake, the taxpayer is paying the ticket on the education fiasco we
are now challenge to expose.
ronee groff: you took my clumsy analogy and swished the basket from midcourt.
🙂
For example, what follows “hopeful expectation” and the last paragraph about “hype…wrapped around public relations language along with unproven designs of learning” and how that helps to undermine public education because [I am interpreting the thrust of your remarks] it undermines our faith and confidence in each other as neighbors and citizens.
Consider the eight Rocketship charters that are described on the Rocketship website as “the leading public school system for low-income elementary students.” Diane rightly [and politely] decries their lack of humility but consider what happens when charters crash and burn: people jump to the conclusion that these essentially private schools that take public monies [but often play by their own rules] are just another example of the failure of public schools to monitor themselves, to keep faith with their communities, to be transparent about their finances and managerial practices and labor relations.
In other words, public school advocates are placed in the bizarre position of having to take the blame for the failures of the charterites/privatizers who are literally taking the “public” out of “public schools.”
You hit the nail on the head when you stated that “there is more integrity and honesty offered by the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals.”
How to “keep it real”? That is the reason why this blog exists. And this blog only serves that purpose when folks like you post such thoughtful comments.
Speak your piece. We all need your voice.
🙂
“How can CA have a law on the books that allows astroturf organizations to organize small minorities of parents to turn public schools over to charter operators but not allow even huge majorities of parents to convert a charter into a public school?”
Exactly. This game is so rigged it stinks on ice. Standards are raised and we rise to the challenge. So, the standards are raised again until we get to the point where the children have reached their peak and can produce no more. Then we are labeled as failures. No charter school is subject to the scrutiny public schools are constantly under.
True enough, and it should be that way. But I think the choice for teachers is freedom or money. If you can’t beat the charters, and you won’t be able to, and I hope I’m around long enough to assess Diane’s forecast that the whole privatization movement will fall apart in 5 years, join them. You’ll be able to really teach, but you’ll have to have defined contributions pensions (Oh Horrors, Not That.), and probably have to have Medicaid for your health insurance, or at least Obama care. We get the policies the majority is too stupid to see through.