Dr. Camika Royal, a 1999 Baltimore TFA alum, recently spoke at the opening of the TFA training institute in Philadelphia and she gave the incoming TFA corps members a dose of hard-earned reality. Philly is a hotbed of corporate reform ideas right now, with a plan drafted by Boston Consulting Group to privatize as much as 40 percent of the public schools, cheered on the the wealthy and powerful local titans.
When I wrote this post yesterday, I was able to link to a YouTube video of the speech. Gary Rubinstein, a critic of TFA and former TFA corps member, told me about the video. However, after Gary posted about it, it was mysteriously taken down and is now available only to those with “permission” to view it.
In her 7-minute speech, she told the new teachers, who were there to “make history,” to “save” the children and to “close the achievement gap,” some of what she had learned since teaching in Baltimore and earning her doctorate in urban education.
Here is a snippet of the speech, thanks to Gary Rubinstein. Gary has printed portions of the speech on his website. Originally, he had a link to the entire speech, but that is no longer available.
Dr. Royal said:
Recently, there has been a constant state of flux and reform producing lateral movement but little to lift us higher or take us forward.”
“The mayor appointed school board was disbanded and replaced with a governor appointed school reform commission whose latest reform plan is to educate by abdicating its responsibility for the schools that have been most difficult to manage.”
“It doesn’t matter what you see, or what you’ve read about schools and educators here, don’t believe the hype. Our schools are more than the lie of successful charters and failing districts. Our educators are more than the false dichotomy of good vs bad, of us vs. them.”
“By and large, educators here are not bad. Educators here are tired. Educators here are reform weary.”
“Our students are more than test scores, graduation rates, and disciplinary issues.”
“Our education is more than failure rhetoric and the achievement gap misnomer.”
It is a shame that someone felt the need to take down the video of Camika Royal’s speech. It shows a woman who thinks for herself and does not spout the party line. We all need more of that kind of independence and critical thinking.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I listened to parts of it twice before it disappeared. She also said: you are not here to replace educators; you are here to reinforce what is already taking place.
LikeLike
To me it furthers my assumption as well as other educators, that unless you have been in the classroom day in and day out, you do not really understand what is going on. The use of business models to improve our schools will not work because our children are not “things” and the input from teachers, school administrators and parents are vital to the educational success of our children. Unfortunately, this is probably just another fad that will die when the business community becomes bored with this venture and moves on to something else with a greater profit potential.
LikeLike
Reading through some of the comments from TFA alums over at Gary Rubenstein’s blog http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/07/06/surprising-anit-reform-speech-at-opening-of-2012-philly-institute/#comment-565353 reminds me of Catholics defending the church against claims of pedophilia.
Of course not all priests are pedophiles and not all bishops protect them, but it’s the pedophiles and their protectors who are ruining the church — and doing unspeakable harm to the children in their charge.
It’s not enough to defend yourself and your institution, saying “we’re not all like that” –– when children are suffering. I understand that Catholic clergy have a lot to lose by speaking out – their pensions, their way of life, their cherished traditions, rituals and beliefs.
What do TFA alums have to lose? The panache of having “TFA” on their resumes? Some contacts that will prove useful in their careers? Can you really justify protecting that over speaking out for children?
I understand how indoctrination can cloud a person’s perception and judgment. I also understand how people protect their own out of a sense of loyalty, even when they have doubts about the truth of their “faith.” Is that why so few TFA alums speak out the way Gary and Dr. Royal have? Is that how some TFA alums continue to rationalize and defend TFA?
Just look to the Catholic Church for how that works out. While it’s still rich and wields power, it’s also slowly dying under the weight of its hubris and horrible misdeeds.
PS – this comment is also posted on Rubenstein’s blog and copied here at the request of another commenter.
LikeLike
Diane-
Thanks so much for mentioning this. As a teacher in Philly, I am shocked (but not shocked) that there is even a TFA cohort this year. But at least someone gave them a dose of truth and reality at institute.
It’s so disappointing to see that TFA is fueling this fabricated “new vs. veteran” battle. More alums like Gary Rubinstein & Ms. Royal need to speak up and counter this hateful and counterproductive message that is being pushed on newly minted corps-members.
As always, thanks for your commitment to spreading knowledge.
-Chris
LikeLike
Hi Diane (and everyone),
I’ll post the same thing here that I shared on Gary’s blog. Camika is not just an alum who was asked to speak, she’s actually in a leadership position at TFA’s Philly Institute and on their regional team. (I also work full time on the New York team). There have been a lot of assumptions made here about Camika’s speech, and although I have no idea where the video went or why (she may have taken it down herself), I can assure you that no one is trying to control what she does or doesn’t say, and also that the opinions she expressed are not an anomaly within TFA’s corps and staff.
And efavorite, I’m not interested in getting into an argument with you here, but regardless of one’s personal opinions about TFA, I find your comparison to people within the Catholic Church defending child abusers really outrageous and offensive. I say this both as a TFA alum and staff member who, despite what some people seem to believe, doesn’t go to work every day thinking “how can I hurt children and destabilize public schools today?” and as a victim of abuse myself.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting. I wish Camika would comment.
One question. Since Philly is laying off veteran teachers, what is the role of TFA teachers?
LikeLike
Why is there even a need for TFA is teachers are losing their jobs?
Why aren’t they keeping the veteran teachers?
The opinions expressed do not match the verbiage on the
TFA site….”TFA leaders fueling an educational revolution, TFA corps get better results than “other teachers”.
Your organization constantly sends messages that undermine the work real teachers do everday, those who have dedicated their lives to teaching, not just a few years prior to moving on to something else. You create an us vs. them atmosphere as though all of you are so much starter than the rest of us…fits the corporate deformer
movement perfectly.
I suppose the narrative will change, but I doubt that it will be genuine.
LikeLike
To Brian Wallace – Do some people really think that TFAers go to work go to work every day thinking “how can I hurt children and destabilize public schools today?” Personally, I don’t think it’s an overt desire to actively hurt children. I thought it was more a sense of self-aggrandizement and clannishness that ultimately harms public education.
I do wonder if current and former TFAers ever go to work thinking that, by not speaking out about the kinds of things Gary Rubenstein writes about on his blog, they are protecting themselves rather than advancing public education. I wonder if they think about the cheating scandal in DC under the leadership of two TFA alums and ever consider demanding a full investigation – for the sake of the children, knowing that TFA might not come out looking so good. I wonder what mental gymnastics they do to discount data indicating that their school reform methods aren’t working. I wonder if they care more about maintaining their own self-esteem and employment than they do about children’s education – the very thing they accuse so many teachers of doing.
Please note, as I responded to a commenter on Gary’s blog, that I draw an analogy to the Catholic church regarding the cover-up, not its acts against children. For people to dwell on an issue I did not address suggests a desire to redirect the subject from one too painful to contemplate – that by your silence you are hurting the very children you set out to help.
LikeLike
I have known Camika for 10 years and had the pleasure of working with her from time to time. I have never known her to be over than a fierce protector and teacher of children, an ally to underserved communities, an honest woman of integrity and wisdom, and a staunch advocate for education reform. While I am certain her speech was intended to caution new corps members to enter their schools with respect and humility, I am also certain she did not intend to be allied with the anti-reform movement. Camika has the wisdom to make a Solomon-like decision and to decry reform for its own sake or in abdication of responsibility while also calling for us to make dramatic, radical change to the status quo. Shame on anyone who would try to use her words to prove points with which she has no interest in affiliating.
LikeLike
Two questions: what is the anti-reform movement? Do you mean public school parents?
And, do you mean that Camika supports the privatization of 40% of Philly’s public schools, as proposed by the management consultants?
LikeLike
Bill, Your comment has given me a lot to think about. I’ll improvise here and write a full post, most likely, another time.
When you say “she did not intend to be allied with the anti-reform movement,” it brings up a lot of issues for me.
How do you define the ‘anti-reform movement’? I know I use the term anti-reform, somewhat tongue in cheek since the word ‘reform’ has been hijacked and has come to stand for something negative. Say ‘reform’ in any gathering of teachers and you will get everyone angry and agitated — not because they are opposed to improving the ‘status quo’ but because ‘reform’ has come to mean reckless changes that have no evidence of having any chance to make things better, and a track record of making things worse. Dr. Royal knows this which is why she said that teachers in Philly were “reform weary” — a great pithy expression that says a lot.
So I should let you know that anti-reform does not mean that its followers are for the ‘status quo.’ I know that I have my own ideas of how to improve schools, for instance, I think the current K-12 math curriculum is about as useless as teaching kids to speak Klingon. But I can’t really push my reforms since I have to first defend against the sort of ‘reforms’ that Dr. Royal was obviously so upset about in her hometown.
To make a more extreme example, one that some will take out of context to attack me, surely, Hitler felt that killing all the undesirables was a way to ‘reform’ Germany. Other people who thought that this ‘solution’ was making things much worse would be ‘anti-reformers’ in that context. Does that mean that they were simply defenders of the ‘status quo’? No, they probably felt that things could be improved in Germany, but certainly if the two choices are to go back to the status quo or continue the death camps then, yes, they would want to go back to the status quo. So, what I’m saying is that the status quo isn’t so bad when the alternative is so destructive.
Now that the video is down, people might claim that I’ve used ‘her words to prove points with which she has no interest in affiliating.’ Maybe that is why the video was taken down. If people could still see the video in its entirety, they would see that these quotes were not taken out of context at all.
I think the confusion with ‘anti-reform’ is that many ‘anti-reformers’ think that there is a limit to what schools can achieve with limited resources. I think others often see this as giving up and saying ‘well, that’s the best they can do’ but I don’t see it that way. I think there is a limit, but I certainly don’t think we have reached it yet. Unfortunately destructive reforms based on the idea that there is no limit to what schools can accomplish make it even tougher to get small improvements.
So even though you (or Dr. Royal, herself) may not feel she is an anti-reformer, her statements clearly show that she is frustrated by much of the rhetoric spouted by those who call themselves reformers. What do you think “the lie of successful charters and failing districts”, “reform weary”, and “the failure rhetoric” mean when you unpack them.
I think the issue is that ‘anti-reformers’ have gotten a bad name (literally — I wish I had a better one for them), because some people see them as impeding change. But I see them as just impeding change for the sake of change, despite much evidence that those changes are making things worse.
And ‘reform’ that makes things worse is what Dr. Royal was speaking about. I’m sure that this is something that concerns all education scholars in this country right now, so it really isn’t very surprising that she said it.
Now, does this mean that she agrees with everything I and other, ‘anti-reformers’ believe? No. And we don’t all agree on everything either. (And neither do the ‘reformers’ — they disagree a lot, for example, on whether teacher evaluations based on test scores should be made public.)
I’d say that Dr. Royal is not fully in one camp or the other — which means that she is not fully in the reform camp. Her statements express concern about oversimplified reform, and that is, literally, ‘anti-reform’ in the modern context of the word ‘reform.’
If you are her longtime friend, I encourage you to encourage her to write some kind of response to this incident.
For you to be so defensive about her being even associated by the likes of me, who have spent 21 years learning what I can about schools and education, is really bothersome to me. It shows a little of why it is so hard to get meaningful productive discussion about how to ‘reform’ schools in a healthy way.
LikeLike
Please do not classify all her are anti- reform as then being for the status quo. It depends upon what reform you are talking about. It is not that simple. I listened to her and she clearly told them they were not coming to replace teachers and kids were much more than test scores. Most people who post and read here agree with her.
Listeners were not questioning her….the opposite…it was refreshing to FINALLY see and hear a TFA alum not bashing the non-TFA type of teacher…the public school kind who dedicate their lives to teaching, not just a few years until you find something better to do.
Shame on you for making sweeping generalizations. Where did anyone here say anything negative about Dr. Royal?
Why is TFA so defensive? What are you guarding?
LikeLike
Sorry…typos….rushing…classify all here as anti-reform and then we must be for the status quo.
LikeLike
Reading your post again it appears you have a warped view of why her speech was noted by many. This originally started on
Gary Rubenstein’s blog and it created discussion there as well.
It was remarkable because it wasn’t the usual TFA spin. So you have twisted the people who were admiring her speech into being those who are also anti-reform, as though TFA signifies reform.
They have been around for 20 years and evidently, there is still an achievment gap. Maybe TFA is the status quo.
One has to question whether you are truly defending Ms. Royal or whether you are defending some overdue criticism of the TFA indoctrination, which appears to be in need of a tune-up.
Also, I would think someone as accomplished as Ms. Royal would prefer to speak for herself. Please consider other viewpoints please.
LikeLike
Camika sounds like a wonderful person. I hope we soon get to hear from her directly.
LikeLike