Teacher Tom teaches pre-school children in Seattle. He is
also a writer and artist. Here he wonders why the leaders of the
so-called reform movement insist on doing things that never work,
like merit pay, or doubling down on truly bad ideas.
He writes:
“Listen, I don’t know why smart people like Bill Gates (Microsoft),
Arne Duncan (US Secretary of Education), and Rupert Murdoch (News
Corporation) continue to insist that we keep banging our heads into
the wall again and again. But I think I do. As Ravitch writes:
“Their belief in the magical power of money is unbounded. Their
belief in the importance of evidence is not.
Tom writes:
“We are being hoodwinked by “free market” ideologues, people of faith that
put most religious people to shame. It is a faith based upon the
mental experiments of people like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand,
apostles of selfishness, competition, and the spread sheet
mentality. There is nothing in these people’s world that cannot be
improved by the application corporate “values.” You know, the
values exhibited by the Wall Street hedge fund managers who, of
course, are part of the neoliberal chorus in support these
evidence-free “reforms.”
“This is why they simply cannot accept the
evidence before their eyes: like all fundamentalists they are
incapable of seeing anything that doesn’t exist within their
carefully constructed belief system. They believe the same thing on
Wednesday that they believed on Monday, no matter what happened on
Tuesday.
“This is why they must lie, insisting that our schools are
failing when they are not; that our test scores are too low when
they are the highest they’ve ever been; that our achievement gaps
are growing when they are, in fact, shrinking; that we are falling
behind other nations when we are not; that there are too many
dropouts when our graduation rate is at an all-time high. Heck,
corporate reform poster child Michelle Rhee’s entire “career” is
based upon lies.
“This is why they cannot answer us when we point
these things out, choosing instead to try to deflect our reasoned
response by accusing us of being racists or union thugs or
communists or, as Bill Gates once described Ravitch, “my
enemy.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Where do the “beliefs” of these fundamentalists end, and their self-interest and will-to-power begin?
That is a very difficult question to answer. I had previously thought that the corporate reformers were all about the money, but I too am beginning to see the pseudo-religious aspect of their crusading. Of course when the crusades bring in the gold, so much the more reason for the profiteers to engage in them.
In the end, does it matter which motive factors more into the minds and hearts of the corporate reformers? It’s good to know about more than one motive, but it doesn’t make them any more or less wrong.
When people pray to the almighty dollar, I don’t think there are such distinctions. It seems to be all about money and the power that comes with that for them.
These elites live in a completely different world from most of us, where 20 of them can readily fly their own jets to a private island for a meeting of the minds at a moment’s notice: http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?428396-Bill-Gates-Jeb-Bush-Oprah-and-Warren-Buffett-meeting-at-SC-island
And they will do virtually anything to maintain that lifestyle, including buying and selling our nation’s children.
I saw the film “Inherit the Wind” last night. It highlights this type of fundamentalist “thinking.” Fortunately, even in a crowd of people blinded by this mass resistance to truth, there are always one or two people who see clearly and they are the ones who lead the rest out of their intellectual stupor.
The President and Sec Duncan have called for much greater funding for early childhood education. My sense is that this is one thing Teacher Tom and many others who post here agree with.
What some refer to as corporate values others of us see as expansion of opportunity. Fortunately “Teacher Tom” lives in Seattle, where state legislators adopted a form of dual credit choice programs many years ago. Like the Post Secondary Options program in Minnesota, Running Start allows high school students to spend part of their time taking courses on college campuses. Here’s a brief newspaper column about a similar program in Minnesota, and other Dual credit courses offered in high schools. The column quotes a variety of students who have written about it:
http://hometownsource.com/2013/09/18/joe-nathan-column-bloomington-kennedy-graduate-students-describe-value-dual-credit-courses/
Actually, most Early Childhood Educators are very concerned by the lack of developmental appropriateness of the K-3 Common Core Standards and have genuine concerns that this administration is likely to require a pushed down academic curriculum that is not developmentally appropriate in PreK as well.
Understood. But I think it’s important to also acknowledge that the President and Secretary have been strong advocates for more funding for early childhood programs.
I’m an Early Childhood Education (ECE) specialist and I know who Obama and Duncan are listening to about this matter. They are not people who share the concerns of most experts in ECE regarding developmentally appropriate practice (DAP).
Pressuring Preschoolers to achieve academically on tasks that are not DAP and regularly testing three and four year olds are NOT better options than providing no Preschool at all.
CT – my mother was one of the nation’s first 20 Head Start directors and first HS director in Kansas. I’ve been involved in this issue for more than 50 years.
There has been and is a huge debate in early childhood as in other fields about what students are “ready for.” And of course, children develop at different rates – so what one child is ready for, another is not.
I have been teaching in this field for 45 years and I’ve completed three degree programs in Education. I know very well what it looks like when young children are pressured by adults to do what they are not interested in or developmentally ready to do. “Sit down, sit still and be quiet” should not be the prevailing expectation of young children, but I’ve seen that in many PreK classes –usually in private programs. It’s not pretty to see kids cry and act out because adults have developmentally inappropriate expectations of them. That turns many children off to school from the get go.
When the government requires that all children of certain ages meet standards and schools/centers/educators are judged by the performance of their students, there is no wiggle room for personalizing learning according to individual interests and levels of development. That is what this administration has imposed on K-12 and it’s not appropriate for many children, especially in K-3. It is also not in the best interests of 3 and 4 year olds.
Thanks for your 45 years. We agree that sit down, sit still and be quiet” should not be the constant theme in high quality early childhood programs.
It would be nice to see the administration get some credit for urging that additional $ be spent on early childhood. But I recognize that some people are not willing to do that.
Don’t forget that even though there might be some children who are “ready for” academic challenges in EC, this fact needn’t lead us to the conclusion that academic work is the most important thing for them to be doing in an EC classroom. What we do know is that all children have a capacity for play, creative problem solving and artistic expression and what is learned in these activities is fundamental for later success. In addition, this developmental phase does have an end point. We owe it to children to meet them where they are, not where we think they could go based on the capabilities we think we observe in some kids. They all need time to play dress-up and catch snowflakes on their tongues, even the ones who have taught themselves to read at 4. Sometimes, those are the kids that need these activities the most.
Emmy, I agree with everything you wrote in the comment above.
BTW, since so many Preschoolers in this country are in private programs, public funding follows them there, so it doesn’t really matter in what setting children are situated. The same rules apply to private centers and family child care (home day care), regardless of funding, in my RttT-ELC state.
Cosmic, have you seen this video yet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wn_RAwF4k8 “Dr Megan Koschnick presents on Common Core at APP Conference”
Koschnick appeared at a conference sponsored by right-leaning organizations, but even as a progressive, I found her presentation to be compelling and commonsensical. I hope Diane takes a look at it as well.
Metro Issues, Lou, Excellent video! Thanks for sharing it!
The only thing I would take issue with is the notion that ECE teachers would fail to recognize when what is expected of children is not developmentally appropriate. ECE teachers take courses in child development and implementing developmentally appropriate practices, and they must pass certification tests covering that content, so they should know this.
As Koschnick mentioned later on, I think the primary issue is that, when teachers are being evaluated based on whether their students have met the standards and how they perform on tests, with their jobs on the line, teachers are being pressured to conform. Considering that there were no ECE or child development experts involved in developing the Common Core standards, there is no research base to support them and ECE teachers do recognize when standards are not developmentally appropriate, that really puts teachers between a rock and a hard place.
This is happening already in New York State. We have PreK standards aligned to the Common Core. The school district in which I teach has adopted the math program and they purchased the PreK level version for our PreK program, because, well, we can’t afford to “waste our students’ school time with play.” Seems they’ve forgotten basic human development…young children learn through play.
How awful, Concerned Parent & Teacher. I don’t know why the rush is on in NY. From what I’ve read, your state applied for but was not awarded the Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge (RttT-ELC) grant, so those are not federal requirements. Maybe they are banking on winning next time around.
We have really got to do what we can to stop this madness. Are you aware of Defending the Early Years? http://deyproject.org
“We are doing earlier and earlier to children what we shouldn’t do later.” ~Dr. Lilian Katz
YES! CCSSI are not developmentally appropriate for my 1st graders; there are things that I am supposed to be teaching them that I taught 3rd graders when I was student teaching back in the fall of 1995!
Funding as a general idea is fine. It’s the implementation that’s probably the problem. Up through Kindergarten, education is supposed to be mostly about exploration, and that’s because little kids’ brains aren’t ready for anything beyond that. I know first hand (from a teacher friend) how things like operational math is being pushed down into Kindergarten. This is wrong.
“What some refer to as corporate values others of us see as expansion of opportunity.” I don’t think Teacher Tom’s point is as simple as this. He is critiquing the underlying ideology that draws these people together as a common force and lies behind what ideas get expressed as “reform.” Of course, any number of these “reforms” can be pretty good by themselves. You know what they say about a broken clock — it tells the time accurately 2x a day.
Unfortunately, because these reformers believe in rational choice models of human behavior (on both small and large scales) they don’t see themselves as being beholden to a particular ideology. Ideology is for other people. If only a market could be interjected into this system, they believe, then freedom and opportunity for all can be obtained.
Setting aside whatever technocratic changes they suggest (and some can be good) the fundamental issue is that they are attempting to introduce market logic where it hasn’t existed before. There are serious flaws in such a plan that are impossible to see when one’s ideological commitments are firm.
“He who stands aloof runs the risk of believing himself better than others and misusing his critique of society as an ideology for his private interest.” Theodor Adorno
Emmy, I think Diane and Teacher Tom lump together a number of reforms under the label of “corporate reform.” It’s a strategy designed to help discredit what others are doing. I understand this – have seen it done many times.
I never use the term “education establishment” in my newspaper columns because I think there is a vast array of people working in public education, and they don’t always agree. Some critics use the term but I think it’s as much of a mistake to use one term as the other.
When some of us suggested more than 40 years ago that there should be options within public education, we were told by some that we were destroying public education. When Democratic Governor Rudy Perpich proposed allowing high schools students to take courses on college campuses, with state funds following them, paying for their tuition and books, he was vilified by some educators. Now that program (adopted in 1985 is huge popular and was expanded by the legislature last year (over the opposition of some major education groups)
Corporations and people who work in them, vary widely win what they like – like people who work in schools.
It is a free country and people can – within limits set by the Supreme Court – say what they want. I try to avoid labels.
Yes, Joe,
It is very important to be kind to Corporations. After all, they are people, too right.
Ang, I don’t see anything in my post that says “be kind to corporations.” I did suggest that no all people who work in corporations – or in schools – agree.
For example, here’s a great story about a fine young man who works for a large corporation. Regardless of what you think about improving schools, I think you will enjoy this:
http://www.startribune.com/local/224435591.html
Joe,
Of course corporations are just full of “fine young people”.
Heart warming stories all around.
Right up to the top.
I am positive of this.
I have worked for several large, multinational, confreakingclomerates.
No dispute here.
We really should be kind.
After all, they are in charge of things.
They fund things.
Like, for example, you.
Center For School CHange:
Funding for the Center has come from the Annenberg, Blandin, Best Buy, Bradley, Bremer, Cargill, Carlson, Frey, Gates, General Mills, Joyce, Minneapolis, Peters, Pohlad, St. Paul, St. Paul Companies, TCF, Travelers, Rockefeller, Wallin, and Walton Foundations, the Carnegie Corporation,
A good policy is to never speak ill of your overlord.
Thanks for taking the time to visit our website. Actually, I’ve disagreed on many occasions with some of our funders – written a number of newspaper columns opposing vouchers, which some of our funders support. But my key points in this thread remain.
Ang, how do you feel about allowing families choice among public schools? For some of us, that’s expansion of opportunity, esp for low and moderate income families. For others, apparently is “corporate reform.”
When some inner city mothers and educators tried to create a k-12 public option within the St. Paul Public Schools 42 years ago, they were criticized by some as trying to destroy public education. Ultimately the board decided this was a good thing – and lots of options have been created since then.
Also — this may mark the first time that I send out a piece concerning education reform to my usual recipients (friends, family, co-workers, etc) and THEN read the same piece on Diane’s blog the next day. It’s usually the other way around!
Diane – I just got your book last night. It’s like a hearty and very scrumptious meal. On the one hand, you don’t want to eat it all at once – you want to savor it, maybe even save some for future meals. But on the other hand, it’s so good you just can’t stop eating. You know you’ll be stuffed to the brim, and maybe even rather uncomfortable, but you just can’t stop yourself.
Thank you!
As a once-professional techie, may I note that Apple was at one time Gates’ enemy. Need I say more?
I don’t necessarily see it as a fundamentalist thing. I see it as a distinctly American thing. Simply, that Americans equate financial success with genius. The infallibility of those business types. Gates is super rich so he must be knowledgeable about all things! (When in fact, such wealth can also be the result of other things like intellectual theft, co-opting the ideas of others and claiming credit for them, the luck of timing and so on.) Just because they’re very good at one thing, it doesn’t mean they’re brilliant about all things. (Just because Tiger Woods is great at golf, should he write a column about relationships?)
In response to Mr. Nathan, yes, some good ideas have emerged. The dual enrollment item is something my school district has done since before I was hired in 1997. The issue, Mr. Nathan is that they continue to cling to ideas that have shown no real positive effect. Yet they keep pushing these ideas. Would any of these “genius” businessmen continue to push a policy in their own businesses that yielded no demonstrably positive effect for 10-20 years? (Well, maybe Gates: stack ranking has done wonders for Microsoft, um, er …) Unlikely, but it’s “good” for us.
Thanks for your response, Steve. Glad to hear your district has been doing dual enrollment for many years. Has your state adopted a law allowing junior and senior high school students to take courses for free on college campuses? That’s the law in Minnesota and Washington state.
Re the discarding of ideas – having been at this for more than 40 years, I’m certainly not a defender of every idea that has come along. There also are good ideas that are implemented badly.
I don’t know if it’s free. The local community college is two miles away. Juniors and seniors that have exhausted the highest math and science classes can go to the cc.
The reform movement is analogous to a very smug and annoying co-workers I experienced years ago. Virtually everything out of her mouth was self-serving but once in a while that person had a good idea that we had to recognize.
That being said, I am still baffled how any group can use long-existing ideas that have largely failed or made no effect yet still call themselves reformers. (Charters, vouchers, test-based accountability, merit pay, school closings and the like.)
Steve, it appears that Washington state students do not have to exhaust the courses in high school before participating in Running Start.
Click to access 2012_rs_questionsandanswers-revised_feb2013.pdf
As to charters – I know people in Washington State alternative schools. Some like the charter idea a lot because they are frustrated by local district restrictions. Some are content to run alternative schools within the district.
The spirit of innovation is alive in America – in some school districts and in some charters. Part of the idea is to give educators a chance to carry out their dreams within public education whether it be a Montessori school, or Chinese immersion, or project based, or Core Knowledge, or something that has not been tried before…some have created schools run by boards that have a majority of teachers who work in the school. (See http://www.edvisons.com)
That’s the kind of opportunity that many educators understand and support. Others refer to it as “corporate reform.” It’s about as democratic as you can be.
TeacherTom’s posting is one of the most direct and simplest explanations of why the leading charterites/privatizers can torture numbers, omit some facts and truncate others, make logic do impossible contortions, and still come out feeling good about themselves.
Education is the antidote to miseducation. You can’t have a real debate unless all sides are allowed to participate in the ed debates.
REIGN OF ERROR is muscling its way into the conversation due to its quality and [to borrow a bit from the Mantra of the Holy EduMetrics of the “education reformers”] by dint of sheer numbers.
Diane Ravitch/REIGN OF ERROR (hardcover) on Amazon, 9-19-13, 6:49 PM, PST:
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #52 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#1 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Children’s Studies
#1 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Public Affairs & Policy
#2 in Books > Education & Reference > Schools & Teaching > Education Theory > Reform & Policy
I welcome the inevitable “clarifications” that are going to follow this very public challenge to the conventional wisdom of the education establishment. When Secretary of Education Arne Duncan was recently forced to show that he was not hot, cold and lukewarm on high-stakes standardized testings—but red-hot in favor, damn the failures and full metrics ahead!—that violated one of the most basic guidelines of the leading charterites/privatizers.
To be all things to all people—in words. But to thine own $tudent $ucce$$—be true.
Diane’s book is literally helping to reset the discussion. A discussion that will begin to resemble something a lot less than the eduproduct launching and brand renaming that self-styled “education reformers” are accustomed to.
Democracy. Open, wide-ranging transparent discussion that imposes frankness and honesty on the participants.
Like this blog.
🙂
I just ordered 9 copies on my own dime to give to my board of education members, my principal (who requested it) and myself. I’m hoping that if the BOE becomes educated, they might educate our community—which is pretty divided about testing, APPR, and CCSS.