Colorado public television Brian Malone’s documentary about the “reform”movement, called “Education, Inc.” The showing was followed by a debate, involving pro- and anti- views.
This is a huge breakthrough, first, because Brian was able to bring the issue to a public audience. And second, because Colorado is a major stronghold of the “reform” movement. Senator Michael Bennett, former superintendent of the Denver schools, is a favorite of DFER (the hedge funders and equity investors), which is a source of funding for privatization. At every election, whether state or local, out of state money pours in to assure reformster control. Colorado also has one of the worst, most punitive educator evaluations in the nation, thanks to State Senator Michael Johnston (ex-TFA).
The panel discussing Brian’s film included Brian, the president of the Independence Institute (ALEC), the vice-president of the Colorado Education Association, the leader of a pro-school choice group, and a reporter from “Chalkbeat.”
Here is the link to the program, which is the debate about it. To learn more about Brian’s excellent film, go to his website.
Edincmovie.com
By the way, it was funded by Brian Malone.
I thought the discussion was interesting, but not ground breaking. The ALEC guy was vitriolic as was expected, and I thought Brian Malone did a good job holding up his end. They did touch upon the difference between a charter school that is the result of parent interest and the generic corporate reform movement that wants to grind public education into the dirt. Chalkbeat did a good job of summarizing points while trying to appear more in the middle ground. I thought the weakest link was the union representative who other than wanting to promote collaboration remained passive and seemingly detached. She missed many opportunities to respond to the ALEC guy. For example, he stated that the union was spending the most on the elections in Colorado, and she should have challenged this statement. When the ALEC guy was saying that choice provides the most individualized opportunities for students, she should have brought up how test and punishment by the state is narrowing the curriculum, and how reduced budgets are hurting public schools. I would liked to have seen her have more information at her disposal, and I would liked to have seen more passion in her delivery.
I agree with much of your assessment.
I would also like to have seen someone challenge the premise of what is a failing school? It is usually defined by standardized test scores.
Dave,
How fascinating! Here’s a panel discussion about “Education, Inc.” following a showing. I don’t have time to watch it before I head to L.A. tomorrow. However, I certainly will watch it. From the first few minutes, it appears to be something we might mention after we do our own showing.
Larry
>
Listened to this in its entirety and have seen Education.Inc four times now in showings in Loveland, CO (Thompson School District). Jon Caldara was actually repulsive – sarcastic, mocking, and leering. As an aside, the union rep is also dealing with a major and critical sickness within her immediate family, so she really did quite well considering. Colorado is a real “hotbed” of debate and fighting dark money. In my district, Thompson R2-J, very respected judges have ruled in favor of our union (association) as our TEA has sued the school district (the majority BOE) for not negotiating in good faith this spring. We are awaiting the final decision (appeal) and hoping for a precedent that will help all across the USA!
I have to say, on further reflection, I was bothered by the analogy that James Coleman, the charter school graduate and board member, used to describe education — a burning building, and we’re trying to save a few kids rather than let the whole building burn. If one of the opposing panelists had been thinking quicker, that would have been a great opportunity for a counter to that analogy.
I think he feels very grateful for being given the opportunity to leave a public school that had a lot of problems. He is only looking at his own experience and is not considering the bigger picture. He is one of the few idealists left the the charter movement; the rest are in it for the $$.
I thought the discussion was horrible. The moderator let Caldera make personal attacks, which was uncalled for. The moderator clearly didn’t understand the issues. Why no mention of S.B. 191 (teacher accountability)? Why nothing about the PARCC test and the protests last year? The Douglas voucher program, which was written by ALEC? School closures? All this is tied to corporate education reform, the whole point of the documentary. The moderator made it out to be a trivial squabble, when it’s a National crisis!
The Jeffco recall has very little to do with secret meetings. Americans for Prosperity paid for the current school board majority campaign and is now supporting their defense with so much more $$ than what the teachers (actual stakeholders) are contributing. Nic Garcia, journalist from Chalkbeat, implied the contributions are equal. The Jeffco board hired an under-qualified superintendent from Douglas to push for A4P and ALEC reforms. Douglas pushed the boundaries of the law in so many ways, creating a sham charter school to funnel public per-pupil funds to private schools, and fudging enrollment numbers to obtain more funding. Following their lead, the Jeffco school board created controversy right away by rejecting AP History for not recognizing American exceptionalism.
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/155473/with-jeffco-recall-looming-americans-for-prosperity-organizes-for-school-choice
Noelle Green writes “I thought the discussion was horrible”
You have valid points, but I think all those talking points you mention are important for those only who are against charters and the whole privatization movement.
Yeah, John launched personal attacks, but Brian was rather easy to draw into this style, and that affected his clarity of exposition. Imo.
I think once these intelligent people learn to respect each others’ views, they will have better, more constructive debates. The may end up not enemies, and these school choice advocates may end up seeing that what bugs us most is not their quest for school choice, but that the School Take Over Movement is antidemocratic.
I just watched the roundtable.
While John, the fat, bald guy (I am also that), was not very likeable but communicated very well the ideas of the “other side”. As a result, I have learned that the views of his side are coherent.
If we put aside the current reality, one could say that there are two fundamentally opposing sides in the educational debate: one side is those who think parents should be able to use public money (since it’s also theirs) to pay for the kind of education for their kids they want, and the other side, which thinks that once a uniformly high quality educational system is created, parents shouldn’t be able to use public money to change the options for their own kids in the system.
This is a clear division of views, and each side is entitled to its own view.
Now in the ideal world, each school district should decide which side’s version is implemented there by local public vote, and whatever the result is, it has to be declared a fair decision if we accept democracy as a guiding principle.
The basic problem is that once I add reality to this ideal picture, the ideal is destroyed: the advocates of school choice don’t advance by democratic votes but by system manipulation, bypassing the public hence democracy .
I could be wrong, but I think the reason why Brian couldn’t get an upper hand in the debate was because he didn’t emphasize the above point clearly and repeatedly. Instead, he tried to convince John that his side’s view of the ed debate is wrong, and that, in my opinion, makes no sense. John has as much right to his views as Brian to his.
What John doesn’t have the right to do is manipulate the democratic system to have his views implemented in a given school district.
My other observation is that however frustrating it may be to listen to the voices of the school choice side, it’s worth doing it, since, as a minimum, it clarifies and strengthens our own.
I think on this blog, we often jump on people who dare to talk on behalf of the school choice side. Once we do this, we prevent a round table like discussion to form here.