Somehow I missed this article when it was published in January 2017. It is well worth reading because it explains how the mainstream of the Democratic Party paved the way for the radical rightwing DeVos agenda.
Unless the Democrats regain their pro-public education values, they will cede a significant part of their base. They cheered striking teachers in the spring of 2018, but they long ago abandoned them and their schools.
It is time for Democrats to once again be the party that fights for the common good, the party that supports public schools, not school choice, which is a mighty hoax. Charter schools are partial privatization that lack oversight or accountability, this opening possibilities of waste, fraud and abuse. On average, they don’t get better test scores than public schools. Those that do choose their students and skew the demographics. Voucher schools get worse results and are free of any civil rights laws.
Hartman could have named many more Democrats who abandoned public schools, starting with DFER. Dannel Malloy of Connecticut. Andrew Cuomo of New York. Please feel free to add to the list..
Hartman wrote last year:
“American public schools have some very serious problems. Spend time in the crumbling public schools on the south side of Chicago and then venture over to the plush public schools in the leafy Chicago suburbs, and you’ll experience alternative universes. Schools all over the greater Chicagoland are filled with committed and professional teachers, some quite excellent. But the students who attend the city schools arrive at school with stark disadvantages, unlike their better-off suburban peers. Discrepancies in school funding only exacerbate such class deficits.
“Most of the problems with the public schools, in other words, are outgrowths of a deeply unequal society. Yet the solution to this problem — the redistribution of wealth — is inimical to the interests of billionaires like DeVos. The fact that she will soon be in charge of the nation’s schools is a sick joke. Make no mistake: DeVos is a serious threat to public education and should be treated accordingly.
“Unfortunately, many Democrats have long supported the same so-called education reform measures that DeVos backs. Often wrapping these measures in civil rights language, Democratic education reformers have provided cover for some of the worst types of reforms, including promoting the spread of charter schools — the preferred liberal mechanism for fulfilling the “choice” agenda. (Charter schools operate with public money, but without much public oversight, and are therefore often vehicles for pet pedagogical projects of billionaire educational philanthropists like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.)
“DeVos will not have to completely reverse the Department of Education’s course in order to fulfill her agenda. Obama’s “Race to the Top” policy — the brainchild of former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, past CEO of Chicago Public Schools — allocates scarce federal resources to those states most aggressively implementing education reform measures, particularly around charter schools.
“Perhaps the most effective advocate of school choice is New Jersey senator Cory Booker, who many Democrats are touting as the party’s savior in the post-Obama era. Liberals swooned when Booker opposed his Senate colleague Jeff Sessions, the right-wing racist Trump tapped to be the next attorney general. But however laudable, Booker’s actions didn’t take much in the way of courage.
“Booker’s funders — hedge-fund managers and pharmaceutical barons — don’t care about such theatrics. They’re more concerned that he vote Big Pharma’s way and keep up his role as a leading member of Democrats for Education Reform, a pro-privatization group. They want to make sure he continues attacking teachers’ unions, the strongest bulwark against privatization.
“Their aim is to undercut public schools and foster union-free charter schools, freeing the rich from having to pay teachers as unionized public servants with pensions.
“So in the fight against Trump and DeVos, we can’t give Booker and his anti-union ilk a pass. As enablers of DeVos’s privatization agenda, they too must be delegitimized.
“Public education depends on it. The beautiful school where I send my children depends on it.“
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Hartman is absolutely right. If Democrats want to be successful in November they need to offer voters a true alternative to Republican and neo-liberal thinking on education policy. Sadly, we could add Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to the list above of Democrats who don’t “get it” when it comes to understanding the importance of public education.
I still run in to far too many Democrats who make distinctions between “for profit” and non profit” charters, as if there’s a meaningful difference…or support candidates who claim this belief. Or point to states with “strong regulations” on charters, like Massachusetts, as some sort of model for other states to follow when it comes to charter school policies. This ignores the fundamental charter problem–the presence of charter schools hurts public schools, period. In an economy that seems not to have enough money to fund 1 set of schools, we are trying to fund both charters and traditional public schools, with reformers clamoring for vouchers that would fund a 3rd group of schools–religious and private non-sectarian schools.
What we need are Democrats who support real public education, not faux public charter schools that are governed by private management corporations.
The only thing public about charter schools are the tax dollars that fund them. It’s way beyond time to eliminate all charter schools, and fully fund public education.
Totally agree, but can you name any? I’m not being sarcastic. Who is there that we can fully support? Are there any Governors or Senators?
Gov. Ralph Northam, Virginia
Gov. Steve Bullock, Montana (running for President)
Ben Jealous, Candidate for Gov. Of Maryland
I spoke with Gov. Northam (D-VA) last week. He is 1000% opposed to any school choice plan for Virginia. He is 1000% opposed to expanding charter schools in Virginia (only eight charters are currently operating). If you look up an “opponent to school choice” in the dictionary, you will see his picture.
I ❤️ Gov Northam!
🙂
The state legislature of Virginia has passed school choice legislation several times in the past few years. see
http://loudounnow.com/2017/02/07/state-house-passes-school-choice-voucher-bill/
The past governor vetoed the proposal. The people of Virginia want school choice, but the governor keeps vetoing.
School choice is dead in Virginia for the time being.
The people of Virginia elected Northam overwhelmingly
They don’t want School Choice.
Hold a referendum and the people will reject it.
Diane,
Gov. Northam is not a progressive and on some issues I strongly disagree with him.
But when it comes to public education he is TERRIFIC.
Unfortunately, that seems to make some progressives heads explode. They seem to have a litmus test that they use to decide whether to work hard to undermine that Democrat as a corrupt sell-out who is no better than Trump and that litmus test does NOT include public education. There is no need to take a strong stance against charters to be embraced by progressives. And I wish that would change and that the ones who do — like Cynthia Nixon — got a little more love from the most prominent progressives.
I think you find these persons mostly at the state and local levels. In Michigan, I’m a fan of Curtis Hertel, Jr., Christine Greig, and Ellen Cogen Lipton–each of these individuals has taken the time to get informed on the issues by teachers, and they listen as much or more than they talk.
It takes time to build these relationships with our elected officials, and that happens mostly with local governance.
Thank you, Diane!
Q They don’t want School Choice.
Hold a referendum and the people will reject it. END Q
I disagree. I live in Virginia. There is widespread support for school choice, and expansion of charter/alternate schooling in Virginia.
The legislature, which is the oldest representative assembly in the Western Hemisphere, (formerly called the House of Burgesses) has passed school choice legislation many times. The previous governor vetoed the proposals, which the majority of the state obviously supported.
There is, thankfully, no provision for referendum in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Referenda are mob rule. Central High School in Little Rock, Ark, would never have integrated, if there were referenda in 1957 .
Virginia is several “states”. 20% of the state lives in ultra-blue Northern Virginia (Arlington/Fairfax/Loudoun). The area around Norfolk is much more conservative, because of the large presence of the US Navy, and retired military.
I lived in Lynchburg, which is very conservative, the home of the late Jerry Falwell, and the Bible-believers.
School choice legislation is dead on arrival, with this current governor. The governors keep “thumbing their noses” at the will of the people.
The governor is strongly pro-public education and anti-choice.
He was elected by a large margin.
That is the will of the people. If they wanted school choice, they would have voted for his opponent.
No state that has ever put vouchers to the people for a vote has EVER voted for vouchers. I doubt that Virginia would be any different. Even conservative Utah voted down vouchers–TWICE!
The Koch brothers elected the legislature. That’s their specialty.
Q No state that has ever put vouchers to the people for a vote has EVER voted for vouchers. I doubt that Virginia would be any different. Even conservative Utah voted down vouchers–TWICE! END Q
This statement is true. No dispute. It is also true, that every state which has brought in vouchers/ESAs,etc through the legislative process, has either kept the program(s) or expanded them.
Arizona will hold a referendum this year, on expanding their ESA program. I cannot predict the outcome.
It is going to be interesting, though.
If I could ask Obama any question, it would be why he appointed Linda Darling Hammond as transition leader for the DOE. When he chose a permanent leader, he opted for Arne Duncan, a fellow Chicago corporate Democrat, someone much less qualified than Darling Hammond. I would love to have been a “fly on the wall.”
Linda was Obama’s education spokesman throughout his 2008 campaign, not the transition leader. The DFER-Broad-TFA campaign to exclude her started the day after the election.
Yes, there are many villains, with failed ideas, can we point to inner city, high poverty schools with positive measurable outcomes? You choose how we define measurable …. and explore why these schools are working and spread the word …. so far, we have not done a good job …. we have to convince the “billionaires” that public schools, in the poorest communities, with the “right” inputs can work for most kids.
Are test scores the goal of education?
Test scores need to take part. How many students were overlooked because of subjective teacher opinions? Test scores are the only objective measure in the sea of subjectivity. As long as the tests are made public and we can see what our students are struggling with we need to have a standard. We should be fighting for transparency – not kill all tests.
Test scores should be used only diagnostically, not for competition or accountability
“Test scores are the only objective measure in the sea of subjectivity.”
Well, Usually Right, you’re completely wrong with that statement. Firstly, as proven by Wilson those scores are completely invalid due to onto-epistemological concerns with some of the concerns dealing with that fact that subjectivity comes into play throughout the whole standards and standardized test making process. Secondly, there is no “measuring” of “student learning” whatsoever:
The most misleading concept/term in education is “measuring student achievement” or “measuring student learning”. The concept has been misleading educators into deluding themselves that the teaching and learning process can be analyzed/assessed using “scientific” methods which are actually pseudo-scientific at best and at worst a complete bastardization of rationo-logical thinking and language usage.
There never has been and never will be any “measuring” of the teaching and learning process and what each individual student learns in their schooling. There is and always has been assessing, evaluating, judging of what students learn but never a true “measuring” of it.
But, but, but, you’re trying to tell me that the supposedly august and venerable APA, AERA and/or the NCME have been wrong for more than the last 50 years, disseminating falsehoods and chimeras??
Who are you to question the authorities in testing???
Yes, they have been wrong and I (and many others, Wilson, Hoffman etc. . . ) question those authorities and challenge them (or any of you other advocates of the malpractices that are standards and testing) to answer to the following onto-epistemological analysis:
The TESTS MEASURE NOTHING, quite literally when you realize what is actually happening with them. Richard Phelps, a staunch standardized test proponent (he has written at least two books defending the standardized testing malpractices) in the introduction to “Correcting Fallacies About Educational and Psychological Testing” unwittingly lets the cat out of the bag with this statement:
“Physical tests, such as those conducted by engineers, can be standardized, of course [why of course of course], but in this volume , we focus on the measurement of latent (i.e., nonobservable) mental, and not physical, traits.” [my addition]
Notice how he is trying to assert by proximity that educational standardized testing and the testing done by engineers are basically the same, in other words a “truly scientific endeavor”. The same by proximity is not a good rhetorical/debating technique.
Since there is no agreement on a standard unit of learning, there is no exemplar of that standard unit and there is no measuring device calibrated against said non-existent standard unit, how is it possible to “measure the nonobservable”?
THE TESTS MEASURE NOTHING for how is it possible to “measure” the nonobservable with a non-existing measuring device that is not calibrated against a non-existing standard unit of learning?????
PURE LOGICAL INSANITY!
The basic fallacy of this is the confusing and conflating metrological (metrology is the scientific study of measurement) measuring and measuring that connotes assessing, evaluating and judging. The two meanings are not the same and confusing and conflating them is a very easy way to make it appear that standards and standardized testing are “scientific endeavors”-objective and not subjective like assessing, evaluating and judging.
That supposedly objective results are used to justify discrimination against many students for their life circumstances and inherent intellectual traits.
Duane,
What about grades that teachers give grades for writing assignments? I think those are the most subjective grades of all! Along with grades for “essay exams”.
But there are elementary school teachers who insist a student cannot handle the work because all they see is messy handwriting or a shy student who doesn’t like to talk. And it isn’t until that student aces a reading comprehension test for 11th graders or a math exam for 8th graders that the 3rd grade teacher will believe that the student is not a struggling reader or mathematician who should be repeating the grade or forbidden to spend the school day doing anything but the lowest level assignments. Testing is far from perfect. But it seems to me that testing can be one additional tool (just one among many) to help teachers understand a student, especially in lower grades.
^^^sorry for the typo in first sentence. Duane, I think you distinguish between “assessments” and standardized testing and you are not opposed to teachers giving their own tests in class, right?
nyspsp, RE: essay grades. I was lucky my kids were in a distr that emphasized writing skills & convened teachers regularly to discuss/ update local writing guidelines [devpd late ’80’s] in ’90’s/ ’00’s [hopefully still doing]. The pgm was not drily formulaic, & addressed var types writing. So teachers were aware/ involved, & had a fairly consistent approach. No ‘attitude’ even in elem.
My kids had some learning issues which affected writing, & benefited from active CST; teachers were mostly on lookout for LD/ supportive [as opposed to considering you lazy if you had hw pbms despite obvious verbal intelligence]. There were a couple of unfairly punitive types in elem but we had a principal who was fair & firm w/ teachers & worked w/them to improve student-teacher dynamics. All 3 attended small colleges that were hily selective for music skills but kids could be ave+ in acad areas. All reported in astonishment that their writing skills were far above that of freshman peers.
My conclusion is that writing skill can be taught well & graded fairly in a sch sys as described, w/a good writing pgm shaped by teachers & good admin support of teachers. But lacking those things, writing – as its grading is so sensitive to subjectivity – will be the first area to illustrate sch sys weakness.
“. . . can we point to inner city, high poverty schools with positive measurable outcomes? You choose how we define measurable …. and explore why these schools are working and spread the word …. so far, we have not done a good job”
For your first question muts, oops mean mets 2006 (sorry about that I have a hard time identifying with the pond scum) 🙂 : Since you asked and even offered that we choose to define measurable, there is no definition of “measurable outcomes”. That is a rationo-logical impossibility to due onto-epistemological concerns shown by Noel Wilson that destroys the concept of standardized testing being either an objective assessment or a “measuring” device.
Can’t happen so why would you call for something that is an impossibility?
“. . . we have to convince the “billionaires”. . . ”
F the billionaires-avaricious self-important blowhard narcissists that they are. Just because they figured out how to steal a shitton of money in their miserly existence doesn’t mean they should command your attention.
Ay ay ay ay ay!.
Diane I have long-thought that what is missing, at its ground, and especially in those who claim to be democrat(ic), is one or both of two processes of thought. The current “coding” and double-speak, then, (talking as distinct from walking) emerges from either or both of these internal processes:
First **is the plain problem of the loss of an earlier-insecure moral and political compass grounded in the principles that **would be touchstones, and would enable them to discern, in plural, and so vastly different climates, what is really good/better/best for all of “the people” (aka: what’s in their oath of office?).
If they have or ever had those principles, they are now in a race, mixed with personal economics and/or power, and on life-support, at best; or totally given up, at worst. Plato has the internal picture of a man who WAS good, and who COULD have been good, internally being weak and half-dead, dragged around by his hair by the internal bully, with the plate of golden charms in front and a club just behind his back.
Second, like our People’s faux friend Trump, they never had those principles in the first place (and wouldn’t know them if they bit him in the . . . face), who hears the New York Times editor say that his twitters about the press being the “enemy of the people” are dangerous to the democracy and probably thinks: “Oh Good, that’s what I wanted in the first place. Now let’s shut down the government.”
He’s even got the Koch brothers mad at him where apparently Bannon told Koch to “shut up and get with the program.” (I’m sure THAT went down well.) Now we have the choice of endorsing the Kochs as they defend their pocketbook against the twin problems (for him) of tariffs and socialistic government giveaways (to farmers) OR the authoritarian stupid-fascist Trump. Talk about choosing between two evils . . . .
There’s a vacuum there, however, that truly principled democrats can fill, if they will. CBK
CBK,
In the era of Trump-Pence, we live in a truly Orwellian world, where the leader tells crowds “don’t believe what you read or see.” Believe only me. The media are “enemies of the people.” Whatever they say or print is Fake. I alone can be trusted.
Ignorance=Strength
War=Peace
Gullibility=Wisdom
Lies=Truth
Facts=Fake News
The challenge is to stay engaged, not to lose sight of reality, not to give up, not to turn off, but to be ready to act and vote these Madmen out of Office.
Beautiful=Catastrophic
WAY TOO MANY “principled democrats” just don’t GET IT, as mrobmsu mentions at the top of this thread. “…Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to the list above of Democrats who don’t ‘get it’ when it comes to understanding the importance of public education.” If those who run for democratic office don’t ‘get it’ but continue to endlessly interfere in the name of helping kids, we never move forward.
Something to amuse-“15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders” identified the “10 most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries”. If Phyllis Schafly hadn’t been added, the compilers would all have been male (likely, White). Entitlement dies hard.
Its defense resulted in the comic list that includes honorable mentions. The list can be found at HumanEventsts.com 2005.
Years ago, Gates’ right hand woman on education told Philanthropy Roundtable that the goal of reform was “different brands on a large scale”. The real question is, why don’t teachers and, retired NEA and AFT members yet, uniformly, know that Gates is a villain? Why does a group like the Delaware State Education Association endorse an establishment Dem., whose platform calls for “market forces” in public education? Why is a former official of the NEA, a Pahara graduate?
Charitably, how does one explain what’s wrong with the unions?
This is an excellent question.
Why are union leaders endorsing Democrats who take a pro-charter position?
Teachers vote for their union leaders. Should the public vote against teachers’ unions because their leaders aren’t supporting the right issues? Is that any different than voting against Democrats because you don’t like a position the DNC has taken?
In the Delaware primaries, there is a Democratic alternative to the establishment candidate.
America paid the price for Hillary’s misguided campaign strategies. If the wrongly-named, corporate-funded Center for American Progress was (1) integral to Hillary’s campaign (2) remain as a force in the party (3) give talking points to media like NYT David Leonhardt, and (4) publish papers including recommendations for “states to authorize charter schools”/school funding should come from selling ads on buses… where is change going to come from?
I find it interesting that the one decision that Hillary Clinton made as Democratic nominee was to appoint one of the most pro-public school Democrats in the country as her Vice-President. Despite all the innuendo about how she was controlled by her donors (which included the evil teachers union, I guess), she appointed a pro-public education VP.
I hope for a DIFFERENT progressive candidate (not Hillary) who will stand up for public education. So far, Bernie is not doing so and neither is Elizabeth Warren. They should be standing up saying they OPPOSES charters, period, and they should be saying “we embrace what the NAACP is saying about charters.” Every progressive should be saying it.
And yet, it is moderates or even conservatives like Gov. Northam who are strongest supporters of public education.
“Strong” would, at a minimum, be a ban on for-profit charters.
“Strong” would, at a minimum, be a prohibition on referring to charters as “public”.
Some Democrats, like Eva Moskowitz, just come right out and endorse DeVos. Other Democrats, like Eli Broad, won’t endorse DeVos but will financially reward the ones who do.
I would absolutely love for the progressives to make public education their issue. I don’t understand their wishy-washiness on it. Cynthia Nixon has strongly supported public education (and most of the progressive agenda) and you don’t see progressive leaders like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren campaigning for her in the primary. I wish I knew why.
NYC public school parent I have to ask if they just don’t understand the FOUNDATIONAL relationship between democracy (even socialistic democrach) and a vibrant system of open and PUBLIC education-for-all.
Capitalism is a way of thought that, in its worst form, subverts other ways of thought–even it’s own context, which is a democratic culture. And if you look at OUR culture in the US, it’s permeated by capitalistic principles at every stopping point and in every corner. Diane refers to the MADMEN and their relationship to double-speak. There is the question, then, of not WHAT they are doing, but whether such madmen really know what and that they are doing it?
There’s nothing inherently wrong (I am convinced) with capitalism. But its over-reach, even into the very framing of our thought into transactional-only ways of living (as is evident in Congress)–that initiates capitalism into enjoying a high place in our museums of political cancers.
When an idealogy takes over our thought, we literally cannot think beyond it, and where it takes a “too-late” destruction to shake us into awareness.
I like Bernie and many others; and I don’t know these peoples’ minds; but my guess is that they just haven’t self-reflected or thought it through enough to know just how dangerous these paths are to the things they themselves endorse and relentlessly cry about. CBK
CBK, It’s not capitalism itself causing the problems, it’s how it’s administered. Since 19thC we had laissez-faire/ supply-side policies. Keynes/ demand-side policies pulled us out of Gr Depr, saw us thro ’60’s. Stagflation starting UK ’60’s [not sure why maybe others know] & in ’70’s here [triggered by ‘supply shock’ of 1st oil embargo] seemed a new phenomenon unsolvable by prevailing demand-side policies (increasing $ supply on top of ongoing supply shock resulted in price/ wage upward spiral)…
Right there is where I think the ball was dropped. Common sense (at least to this artsy layman) would suggest tinkering w/ incrementally dialing back demand-side policies – which had solved laissez-faire collapse & produced 40 yrs of prosperity while decreasing inequality [& public schooling an integral piece] -in attempt to find a balance.
Instead, Reagan/ Thatcher threw their weight behind a return to pre-1929 elitist supply-side policies. Ignoring how that worked out last time. No precautions. Before either of their terms ended we were already seeing boom-bust cycles typical of 19thC, QOL dropping for all but top dogs etc – & govt distracts from its policy failure by blaming debt [works under demand-side], prescribing austerity.
No wonder pubsch sys is undercut w/ea bust [along w/infrastructure, park sys, libraries, museums, etc], at this pt its very future threatened by govt policies. Because supply-side eco policies are all about low taxes/ minimal govt spending/ regs, so whatever global corps the size of small countries can live w/o, we don’t get.
bethree5 “It’s not capitalism itself causing the problems, . . .”
That’s what I was saying. The problem is in those who implement it. First, in the absence of moral-political principles that connect with our political-moral foundations and, second, in how we have allowed capitalistic principles to permeate everything in the culture: for instance, the pervasive ideas that if you cannot sell it, it’s no good; that education is for getting a job; and if you make lots of money, you are immune from the formal and informal. moral, social, or political norms and laws. CBK
let’s be clear–Eva Moskowitz is no more a Democrat than she is a unicorn. at the top levels of governance, both parties hold the same positions on ed policy–and these policies are more “corporatist” than they are ideological. same goes for Broad, Duncan, King, Booker and lots of others in the top echelons of the reform movement. they support policies under the guise of “choice” and “social justice” that are really deeply regressive and uber conservative.
the real tension for this group is how to appear to push back against DeVos and Trump, when DeVos and Trump offer them everything they ever wanted in terms of school choice, vouchers, union busting, and school privatization. you’ll notice that we haven’t seen many, if any, of these folks really do much to protest DeVos and Trump–other than Booker pretending to be angry at DeVos’ hearing, when they’ve attended many ed reform conferences together over the years…
Agreed, mrobmsu, and that’s one of the reasons that I thought Secretary DeVos — with a VP tiebreak vote — may have been the best Secretary of Education selection to advance our causes. Imagine if Trump had appointed someone like Duncan?
In my humble opinion, DeVos is the gift that keeps on giving. Imagine if Trump had picked someone who was uncontroversial, not a multi billionaire, not a religious extremist. She is a walking billboard to warn people of her nefarious goals.
What Diane said. The era of privatization and testing being played off as civil rights and progressive reforms had to end. DeVos was perfect for that, DeVos the most disliked member of the most disliked cabinet of the most polarizing president in history (yep, even more than Andrew Jackson), DeVos the grizzly crazed aristocrat with ten superyachts and no authenticity.
The DFERS are WRONG.
How odd- DeVos Democrats- In 2005, the SPLC designated the Chalcedon Foundation as a “hate group”. Wikipedia describes, in its entry for Chalcedon, the book, “Harsh Truth about Public Schools”. The SPLC summarizes the viewpoint, public schools “jeopardize America’s future (due to) dishonorable conduct, degenerating academic standards, courtesy of teachers unions’ self-interest”. The SPLC characterizes Chalcedon as “opposed to equality, democracy or tolerance”.
Some Dems and DeVos on the same page as a SPLC-designated “hate group”. Apparently, no mirrors in their houses.
Hedge fund, tech, and big pharma billionaires generally harm the human population to make money. They don’t care if online instruction is harmful and ineffective. They don’t care if your factory shuts down and your entire community becomes impoverished because of a hostile, corporate takeover. They don’t care if your personal data were sold to Cambridge Analytica, or if the device in your bedroom recorded your conversations without your knowledge. They don’t care if you die (as long as you don’t sue). They will fight the FDA, the FCC, the EPA, etc.; they will fight the NAACP and they will fight unions. Any politician, like Cory Booker, who takes the billionaires’ money is a Democrat In Name Only, a DINO.
DINOs don’t just privatize and stigmatize public education. They privatize water and power, trash and recycling collection, prisons, and every other public service and protection. They put huge numbers of people in prison. They fire missiles with drones from thousands of miles away, destabilize foreign governments and sell weapons to insurgents, following Kissinger and Albright in a deadly neoliberal game of constant war. They make trade deals with oppressive governments, enabling modern day slavery to manufacture products cheaply. The list goes on. A better Democratic Party is emerging and the DINOs are starting to look like dinosaurs. It is no longer good enough to just call oneself a Democrat and expect half the voters to look the other way while taking handouts with strings attached from sickening, greedy, billion-dollar monstrosities.
“A better Democratic Party is emerging ….”
I agree. But maybe you can tell me why the leaders of that better Democratic Party will not support public education and oppose charters. Because their silence on this issue is deafening.
And if it is only the “old” but good leaders like Tim Kaine and Ralph Northam who are fighting against the pro-charter Democrats, then the progressive movement needs to reassess their values.
Why aren’t those progressives out in force to help Cynthia Nixon defeat one of the worst co-opted Democrats, Andrew Cuomo? Their silence is deafening.
They are running for office on tuition free college, universal healthcare, immigrant rights, demilitarization of police, universal housing, world peace… Supporting public education and unions is a natural part of that platform. I read an article in Business Insider that said Ocasio supports “fully funded public schools.” Maybe she talks more about college than k-12 because she is still paying off her student loan debts.
So, most importantly, she is not rich. She doesn’t take money from billionaires. Television stars are rich, and are paid by huge media conglomerates. The greatest struggle progressives face is dealing with people who cannot relinquish their affection for corporate “Democrats”. I like what Cynthia Nixon says, but I don’t trust her, not yet, anyway. Since 2008, I’ve learned to stop listening to campaign slogans because so many campaign from the left and govern from the right. You should too, frankly. Support progressives. That means supporting people who don’t live in mansions, for the most part. Bashing progressives to support the failed neoliberal establishment is extremely unhelpful.
Bashing moderates who are pro-public education so that “progressives” who support “public charters” can turn states like Virginia into a DFER charter-loving state is less than helpful.
Bashing Cynthia Nixon or refusing to actively campaign for her and endorse her against Cuomo because you think Cuomo’s “free college”* means he must be a progressive is less than helpful.
*(with all kinds of restrictions that means it is not as advertised)
If you read my posts, you will see that I don’t “bash” charter-loving progressives the way you attack moderate public school-supporting Democrats. I ask you to do the same with moderates.
I point out how great the progressives are on other issues and wonder why they refuse to stand up for public schools.
A difference of opinion does not make a moderate Democrat corrupt and not any better than Trump. When you learn that, you won’t make the same mistake i did and vote against Jimmy Carter because he was “no different than Reagan.” Carter was not a progressive Democrat. Carter’s defeat did not prove anything except enable Reaganism.
And FDR would never have been elected if voters believed as you do that rich people can’t be President.
“I don’t trust Cynthia Nixon”. That says it all. You would prefer Andrew Cuomo because you “don’t trust” Cynthia Nixon. Because when it comes to “trust”, why wouldn’t Cuomo be your man?
I am speechless.
I would vote for Nixon. I am sure some have reasons for not enthusiastically endorsing her, though. Reminds me of a certain other election. There are many elections like that. I don’t mean anything against Nixon, except that she is not a democratic socialist. My students need a political revolution. The last forty years have been devastating.
“Democratic Socialist” is a label. To me, those politicians are offering the same DOMESTIC platform I associated with Democrats like FDR, Truman and LBJ (on foreign policy there are probably more differences). The Democrats who brought us workers rights, unions, New Deal, Medicare, Social Security.
I don’t really care if politicians call themselves Democratic Socialists or what we did in the olden days — “liberals”. (That was before Dukakis’ was humiliated by Bush 1 because Roger Ailes and company turned “liberal” into something nasty and unAmerican.)
I want the Dems to return to the domestic policies of Truman, FDR and LBJ. I support candidates that want that — especially in public education and health care — regardless of the label they choose to run under.
But I apologize for thinking you were bashing Nixon. Although I do think you were trying to label her unnecessarily. She stands for the same ideas that “democratic socialists” stand for, but she probably is old enough to remember when that was just old fashioned Democratic policy.
You can add Jerry Brown, CA governor, to the list. He owns several charters in Oakland, military ones I believe, and has vetoed every charter accountability bill that’s hit his desk.
Juan William’s article here (from December, 2016) presents the DFER talking points: http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/310957-juan-williams-big-questions-over-trumps-pick-for-schools
To Usually Right up there, at 11:54 AM: You may, indeed, be usually right but, here, you are very much WRONG. First, Diane provided a good reply. Secondly–& here we also need a Wilson rant from Senor Swacker–the “standardized” tests which have been used to “objectively” quantify students’ learning are neither valid nor reliable–2 criteria for standardization. This whole testing movement has been a sham–from the WJC administration straight through Obama, Duncan & (final stab in the back) King. We thought, upon electing Obama, we’d see the end of NCLB but…no..Arne Duncan & RT3 & MORE te$ting & MORE taxpayer $$$$ flying past the public schools & into the greedy hands of Pear$on Publi$hing exec$. & then–adding insult to egregious injury–the scores of these invalid tests (NEVER delivered “on time” for remediation or placement, U.R.) were used to close public schools (50+ in Chicago)…forever.
Just…NO. And NO again & again. Te$ting has NOT been used to HELP our kids in any way, shape or form, but, instead to monetize them (& NOT the children of the legislators, the politicians or the 1% & corporate thieves). Ask any parents, especially those who have been active in the opt out movements. Testing is all for the better…for “other people’s children.”
And if you still think you’re right, look up the “Pineapple Question” & some other posts in this blog. The tests have NEVER been improved, there has NEVER been quality control & the people scoring the tests have been hired off Craig’s List & through newspaper ads. Just read Todd Farley’s 2009 (& NOTHING has improved since then!!!) paperback,
Making the Grades: My Misadventures in the Standardized Testing Industry.”
Done! (didn’t see your response until I got finished scrolling down, responding as I went.)
Although I didn’t use the summary of Wilson’s work maybe I should put it in a new reply.
Just read that & your (thanks!) Wilson reply.
Thanks, & excellent as always, Senor!
As it is, rbmtk, excellent response!
Thanx again, Duane!
For Usually Right and any others who believe in using standardized test (other than individual diagnostic type tests to assess for disabilities) scores for anything:
“Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other words all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
I love this blog. Someone says that test scores are objective measures, and look out!, a flood of facts and reasoning to dispute it. Thank you, Duane.
Me, too, LeftCoast!
And, of course, endless thanks to Duane for what really should stand alone as the last word about/against testing.
In fact, love what you wrote in the “explanation” post RE: Emma Lazarus’ words, adding in “Core” & “yearning to teach free.”
We could never substitute “test” free (although Pear$on & the reformers would strongly disagree). In fact–& this might sound terrible, but what w/all of this awful separation of families & recent comparisons to Nazi Germany & the occupations & concentration camps, I haven’t found it too far out to think about the famous words above the entrance to Auschwitz: “Work is/Makes Freedom.” Does non-stop, nonsensical & far from educational testing make freedom?
No, it robs our children of their REAL education, their neighborhood public schools & the very heart of their communities.