I have a simple policy: When you are fighting for your life, you don’t get into battles with the others on your side. There is a long history of doctrinal and personality battles that have split the opposition to those in the highest seats of power. The story of leftwing politics is a history of doctrinal quarrels. My first job when I arrived in New York City was as an editorial assistant at the New Leader magazine, a small magazine of ideas with a history of democratic socialism (i.e., anti-Communism). It was founded by Sol Levitas, who sympathized with the anti-Communist Mensheviks. When I got a job as an editorial assistant at the age of 22, I knew nothing of these quarrels, but over time I learned about not only the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, but the Trotskyites, the Lovestoneites, the Cannonites, the Schachtmanites, and a few other splinter groups. All of this was fascinating to me, a wide-eyed young college graduate who never heard of any of this stuff before arriving at the dusty offices of the New Leader on East 15th street in New York City.
The message I learned was to try, try, try to build a coalition; try not to fight with your allies; try not to get into quarrels over doctrine while your enemies grow stronger, while they feed and encourage your quarrels, and while they gloated as you battled.
That is why I make a point of never criticizing those who are on the side of public education, even when I disagree with them. Maybe someone will find an example where I broke that rule, but that’s what I aspire to. I also try never to get involved in union politics. To begin with, I don’t belong to a union, but to end with, it does us no good to fight internally when the forces we face are so well-armed with money, a rigid ideology, and expensive public relations.
Others don’t agree with me.
In the spirit of open dialogue, I present here a recent exchange of letters between Mercedes Schneider and Randi Weingarten.
Since I admire them both, I would like to see them working together as allies. I hope this exchange brings that day closer.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The story of leftwing politics is a history of doctrinal quarrels.
Spoken like someone who really knows her history! 🙂
You make an excellent point, Dr. Ravitch!
LikeLike
They key question is whether Randi is really an ally when she has led the union into so much support for the enemies of public education. I can give multiple examples from brokering contracts in so many cities to support for merit pay, the common core, Bill Gates at the AFT — I’ll let others complete the very large list. Here in NYC one of the major battles has been over co-locating charter schools in public school buildings. Yet the UFT has had its own 2 charters (started by Randi) co-located in 2 public school buildings for years. One of the schools was the George Gershwin JHS (where I went as a kid) in East NY, Brooklyn. That school was deemed a failure and is closing, due in part from having the UFT charter in the building people there who opposed the closing told me. This year the Bloomberg controlled Panel for Educational Policy allowed the UFT to move the school into another public school. Parents came out to oppose that as it does exactly to that school what charters have been doing – take away valuable space, etc. So tell me how Randi is an ally? Just because she sometimes says “the right thing?” Here is a mantra I learned a long time ago. Watch what she does, not what she says because she will say anything at any time to anyone if she thinks it will help her agenda. What is her agenda? it is not one that favors teachers — the people she represents — or the future of the public schools. When the only large scale organization does not come down squarely on the side of real reform or does not reject completely the ed deform agenda or does not put all its resources into the battle (instead of trying to sell common core) then we have been left to fight these battles on our own.
One last example — we – a bunch of NYC teachers and parents – made the definitive response to Waiting for Superman, a film that has gone far and wide, due in no small part to the efforts of Diane. One would expect the union to use its resources to make that film available to every teacher as a way to battle for public education. The UFT/AFT has refused to acknowledge the existence of the film and in fact has an effective boycott. Why? Because those involved have been internal critics over the years. The mantra has been for Randi and her allies — keep power at all costs even if the union ends up weaker and possibly ultimately destroyed.
LikeLike
She’s from the Broad Academy.
http://www.broadeducation.org/news/117.html
LikeLike
She cozies up to Eli Broad who has single handedly done more damage to Chicago Public Schools than anyone then brags that she used Gates’ money to create a plan sharing program there? So does that cancel out the fact that she’s abandoned teachers to pal around with reformers? Not in my modules it doesn’t. And that garbage she cranked out about the CCSS being some vehicle by which we will close the achievement gap is insane. How are poor kids and lower middle class kids served by a curriculum that makes them hate the learning experience and causes them to hate themselves for feeling dumb? I find Randi’s lack of contact with reality nearly as disconnected as Space Ranger John King of NYSED who after a shellacking on every stop of his CCSS listening tour — a tour he tried to cancel because he couldn’t take the heat — he claims he’s observing a consensus nationwide about the Common Core. Oh there’s a consensus about it all right but it’s not the fairy tale King is spinning and it’s not the fantasy Randi is spinning. These people are so far gone and so disconnected the only solution is to replace them.
LikeLike
I think it is important to get these questions and responses out in the “open”. It is still hard for me to believe that a poll determined that 75% of teachers favor common core since I personally know hundreds that are opposed!
Maybe I hang with a different crowd?
LikeLike
A large number of teachers (at least in my district) were paid (RTT funds, I believe) to pimp the core to colleagues, er, oh, I mean to “train us” on CC.
What is the old saying… hard to understand something when your paycheck depends on you NOT understanding…
Just an observation.
LikeLike
Duane Swacker is correct: Mercedes Schneider has decisively debunked the 75% support argument. I provide just two links; those interested in pursuing it further can google.
Link: http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/weingarten-wants-me-to-want-the-common-core-state-standards/
Link: http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/hart-weingarten-and-polling-about-common-core/
What makes this particularly telling is that Mercedes Schneider is an AFT member and high school teacher with no less than a PhD in Applied Statistics and Research Methods!
In other words, the head of the AFT (with no obvious expertise in math or polling or the like) is showing absolutely no confidence in a highly qualified and ethical numbers/stats person who is a member of the very same AFT.
IMHO, this is neither wise nor effective leadership.
Just my dos centavitos worth…
🙂
LikeLike
No teacher I know who is familiar with the Common Core in ELA also supports them, except for a few whom I have met who are working with one of the standards-promulgation groups like the Literacy Design Collaborative. I do know a LOT of teachers who are, as yet, unfamiliar with these particular “standards” and who have become inured to the idea of invariant standards and so are not YET adamantly opposed to these. No, I have not conducted a scientific poll, and so the fact that almost every knowledgeable English teacher I know HATES these new “standards” is, perhaps, an anomaly. But as the social scientists at Renssalaer Polytechnic just showed in a fascinating study on social change, change is driven not by the majority but by the 10-to-12 percent who care about something deeply, and a poll of warm bodies that is not corrected for knowledge of the subject being polled about will yield highly questionable results.
Go out into the street and ask people why we have seasons. People can’t give informed answers to questions about matters with which they are, as yet, unfamiliar.
LikeLike
Depends how the questions are worded. I’m sure 75% of people are happy to switch to metric measurement. In theory, yes. Once practical details and cost are taken into account….
not so much.
LikeLike
Well, I would say it depends on 1) if the new standards allow flexibilities and autonomy; and 2) who makes curriculum and instructional guidance. To me, CCSS just sounds like turning Department of Education into the Ministry of Education, which sounds even scarier. This means government’s bureaucracy controlling what to teach and how to teach–just like establishing national education agency (i.e., MOE, currently MEXT) like my home country (Japan) has been doing for over +150 years. Textbooks require ministry’s approval. Schools are not allowed to choose textbooks outside the ministry’s selection. Students are being taught a distorted account of national history about war. Teachers will be penalized (could be suspended or even fired, if worse) if they fail to stand up and sing an emperor-worshipping anthem (Kimigayo) in any school activity. And the list goes on and on.
Having said that, I would say CCSS will likely put teachers and schools into further constraints than they are having now. The impact of nationalizing curriculum on the entire nation is far more disastrous than the one I see in my home country, which is a bit smaller than California.
LikeLike
Exactly, Ken. We are creating what I call the Common Core Curriculum Commissariat and Ministry of Truth.
LikeLike
Mercedes had debunked that 75% figure already.
LikeLike
The issue with the AFT survey’s 75% “overwhelming supporting” CCSS is that only approx 25% selected “strongly agree.” the remining 50% selected “somewhat agree.”
Given the current nationwide backlash aganist CCSS, it seems that the a number of the “somewhat agree” folks have decided not to agree.
They did not “strongly agree” with CCSS to begin with.
LikeLike
My school district is done with CCSS. Our local union president and our superintendent publicized as much on Friday:
LikeLike
The “somewhat agree” answer means nothing. It can mean, for example, “I don’t know anything about these standards yet, but we’re being told that they are the Second Coming.”
LikeLike
Congrats, Mercedes!
LikeLike
Some days I just love the fact that this blog is hosted by a historian.
The New Leader.
Nineteen fifty-six, and the secret revisiting of the history of the 1930s in the Soviet Union.
Wow! I hope this exahcnge doesn’t lead to ten or twenty years of research and reading into the epic fragmentation of America’s Trotskyist movement(s) between the late 1920s and 2013 – 2050… It might be worth several Phd theses now that many people in the USA care about the history of the Left in the USA, though.
We’ll see.
Let’s see.
Randi’s discussion of her teaching experience is interesting.
But that’s not my primary concern. And let’s hope it doesn’t become anyone else’s.
Let’s share a few historical facts, and then stop.
The AFT can use a robust debate about the role of Bill Gates and his billions in AFT policy and the promotion of the “Common Core.” With or without this contribution, that debate will now proceed (thanks in part to some technologies that Bill Gates has helped move along…).
So… Ignoring the question of how many semesters Randi Weingarten taught in New York City, please let’s see if the national policy issues can get some airing.
First, some background…
Three years ago, in July 2010, I covered (as a reporter for substancenews.net) the AFT convention in Seattle, Washington.
Less than a month earlier, as a member of CORE who had not been a candidate, I was our main vote count watcher at the American Arbitration Association when the votes were tallied in the runoff voting for the leadership of the Chicago Teachers Union. Part of my job in Chicago had been to be clear so I could represent us at the counting. And the most fun part was to call over to the place where Karen Lewis and our candidates were milling around (it was an election night) and let them know when the AAA had confirmed with a reasonable number of votes counted that CORE had won.
So, I wasn’t a delegate to the 2010 AFT convention because of a division of labor that had worked out fine. But by then I was able to do the AFT convention as a reporter, having (finally) resolved some difference between Substance (and by then substancenews.net) and the AFT leadership about what constitutes “press.”
Along with Norm Scott (New York’s EdNotes) and others, I was at the press table for the AFT convention in Seattle. Despite the fact that AFT has around 1.5 million members, there wasn’t a lot of competition for space with the “press.” Even the Seattle corporate media generally ignored the event. A favorite moment of mine came when six or seven of us showed up to cover a press briefing by Randi — and virtually all of us were from “alternative” or socialist media. (The Wall Street Journal called in by speaker phone; far as I remember, The New York Times ignored the whole thing).
AFT had invited Bill Gates to be a featured speaker at the 2010 AFT convention in Seattle Washington.
As in OMG! And for some, WTF?
That wasn’t all.
AFT had, more or less, blacked out the history of the Labor Movement in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest at the same convention. Given that some delegates to the convention were labor history people from Seattle (and other parts of the “Pacific Northwest”) that was insulting and uncool.
Bill Gates, to say the least, was — and is — not a “friend of labor.”
His corporation was anti-union, and it didn’t take us more than a few blocks’ walk to meet workers who had been — er, “mistreated” by Gates. There was an Internet cafe a couple of blocks from the convention center that featured information about Gates’s anti union work.
So the speech of Bill Gates to the AFT in 2010 in Seattle was half the story, which I covered.
The other half was that the AFT could have devoted at least a little time, on the official program, to the robust history of labor in the “Pacific Northwest.” But didn’t.
Many of us who arrived in Seattle knew that Seattle had been the center of a general strike after World War I, and that a few years later a federal official had remarked that the USA had 47 states and the “Soviet Republic of Washington” (state). Anyone who had studied the history of our unions in greater detail knew that as far as workers for more than a century had been concerned, the demarcations between “Oregon,” “Washington,” “British Columbia,” and “Alaska” were very blurred. That had to do with several factors, one of which anyone can see from anywhere in Seattle — all that bay and Ocean and the relationships of working people across those spaces.
So… We could have had a very interesting program on the “global economy” at that teachers’ convention based on history that had been created within a few miles of where we were sitting.
But history was not honored at the teachers’ convention that July.
Instead, we got Gates’s version of “reform.” From Bill Gates himself.
And then, because some people had walked out of the convention and others protested, some people in the AFT leadership organized a chorus of major cheering for Bill Gates. To drown out the boos.
That’s one part.
A second part if Common Core.
It’s true, as Randi states, that Bill Gates has helped fund AFT projects around “Common Core.” But it’s not accurate to say that Common Core has been robustly debated in AFT. Nor is it accurate to lead people to believe that “Share My Lesson” could have been done without tethering it to Common Core.
Let me be personal about that. A long long time ago, I helped pioneer a couple of versions of “Share My Lesson” in Chicago. Sharing lessons is nothing new among teachers. But with the dawn of word processing on personal computers and the Internet (pre World Wide Web), it became possible to share lessons more broadly than just passing around worksheets and other materials on, say, how to teach “Romeo and Juliet.”
Back in the 1980s, when I was pioneering the “Macintosh Computer Classroom” at Chicago’s Amundsen High School, I was also working in conjunction with the Chicago Board of Education’s Office of Information Technologies. (It was a brief moment of democracy following the death of Harold Washington and the beginning of Local School Council-based “school reform”…). During those months, I discussed with the CPS head of IT using the Board’s Internet email system to share lessons. The system back then was called CPSNET, and so we began doing that. I put up my complete set of lessons (ironically, in MS Word, which I had insisted on from the beginning because it was clear that it was going to be around longer than the “free” Apple software, “MacWrite”). We were planning to expand that when the corporate version of “school reform” began cascading over Chicago. Within a few years, we have both the “Web” (which was in the abstract a good thing) and the beginnings of the corporate dictatorship (mayoral control began in Chicago in 1995 with the passage of the Illinois Amendatory Act).
The very idea of “sharing” lessons was close to being obliterated. Instead, a new generation of teachers was being groomed (we learned later) to dunk themselves into classroom teaching for a couple of years and then go on to become edupreneurs or “leaders” of the kind that Teach for America has now spread to infect far and wide. Instead of sharing lessons, as we had always done, and mentoring novice teachers (FNGs are always with us), as we veterans had always done, we got arrogant young zealots who …. Well, no more said about that.
My point is:
There is absolutely no good reason for any teacher-based lesson sharing to be conjoined with Common Core propaganda. Except Bill Gates’s dollars.
And there is little historical evidence that there has ever been a serious debate about the support both AFT and NEA are giving to the Common Core.
Until now.
So as the man wrote in one of those now almost-banned “non informational texts” —
Let the wild rumpus begin!
And thanks, Diane, for sharing this…
And thanks to Randi and Mercedes for helping make it possible.
But I have one suggestion.
Even though I’m concerned about the bona fides of all of our leaders, I hope this debate doesn’t get mired in Randi’s teaching experience. It’s almost as irrelevant as those wonderful discussions Diane references when she reminds us that once upon a time the words of Jay Lovestone, Max Schachtman, and James Cannon were VERY IMPORTANT — at least in the New York “left.” Hopefully, enough has been said about the personal side of all this, since… The issues are Common Core and all that Gates money. To personalize that beyond what’s now been said here would be the kind of distraction that so often characterized the “Old Left” that Diane talks about in relation to her time at New Leader.
As most people who care know, in the Chicago Teachers Union, we didn’t need a June runoff to know who had won the 2013 election. When the votes were finally counted on May 17, 2013, the CORE slate, headed by Karen Lewis and Jesse Sharkey, had won with 80 percent of the votes.
And since I didn’t have to worry as much about watching a final count by AAA this time around, Sharon and I were elected as delegates to the state and national conventions. We had a delightful time at the Illinois convention a couple of weeks ago, and now everyone is looking forward to the AFT national convention in Los Angeles in July 2013.
Let the wild rumpus begin.
[Endnote: The story of when Substance finally was recognized as a “legitimate” publication by AFT officials itself may be worth another Phd, We began publishing in 1975, became a regular corporation in 1996, and had “periodicals” privileges from the U.S. Postal Service by 1997. But according to AFT officials, we were not “press”. That was a minor kind of epic struggle over the First Amendment, which AFT had some reservations about, at least regarding publications that had been critical of many AFT policies and practices. The story, not worth too much time, includes a droll half hour in New Orleans 15 years ago when Ed McElroy, then AFT Vice President (I believe; maybe he was “Secretary Treasurer”) reaffirmed the decision by the AFT President to bar us from covering that convention. That was after we (my wife Sharon and I) had driven a lot of miles to the convention. And by then anyone who wanted to could find lots we had published in various places, but just so there was no debate, we brought one year’s worth of our print edition, a monthly. After fingering and fondling more than 120 pages of tabloid, Ed told us that we still weren’t going to get press credential. Sorry about that, etc. But as a “private” entity, AFT had the “right” to exclude people it didn’t like from its press room. But… Ed then said… since Sharon and I were AFT members (I was teaching at Bowen High School in Chicago; Sharon at the “old” Jones Commercial), Ed invited us to be “visitors” to the convention. We declined. We hadn’t driven to New Orleans from Chicago to “visit” the convention. Anyone who has ever covered the AFT knows the different access reporters get, and it was an insult. Since we had a week at a nice hotel in the French Quarter, we converted out press time into doing touristy stuff while the convention droned on over the in convention center — and several people fell out from the heat during a march one of those hot days, while we were in our hotel’s swimming pool].
LikeLike
The internecine history of NY left politics must be a result of the water they drink. Then again, I hear that also explains bagels. Menshevik Bagelry, anyone?
More seriously, I agree with George that it’s much more important to debate policy issues than to get stuck in personal attacks. The relationship of philanthropies to education policy is an important question, and one I don’t think anyone has nailed well.
LikeLike
The “standards” are the engine driving the “reform” juggernaut that is rolling over kids and teachers. And they are the work of amateurs whose ignorance of the teaching of English is matched only by their certainty.
The new “standards” seem to have been conceived in almost complete ignorance of the sciences of language acquisition and of many of the best practices in the teaching of English.
They are invariant and inflexible. Kids differ. The standards do not.
They are ill conceived at their most fundamental level, at the level of the categorical description of what standards should look like in the various domains that they cover.
They lead people to write lessons to “cover” the standards. Every educational publisher int he country now begins every project in math or language arts with a list of the “standards” in one column and a list of the lessons where these are “covered” in the next column over.
IMPORTANTLY, the new “standards” lead publishers to reject innovations in curricula and pedagogy because these don’t conform to the “standards.” The “standards” are backward and backward-looking, and so they will stop real innovation in English language arts curricula and pedagogy absolutely cold and, instead, encourage the perpetuation of outdated ideas and, consequently, of mediocrity.
The new “standards” will lead to the Walmartization of U.S. education (“The purpose of the new standards is to create national markets for products that can be brought to scale,” said Arne Duncan’s chief of staff.)
Much that is really valuable in the teaching of English is precluded by these amateurish “standards.”
The “standards” were not vetted. That is, they were not subjected to very public scrutiny by experts in the various domains and to public discussion and debate, and they weren’t tested.
They also misconceive the purpose of education at a fundamental level. They are a bullet list of skills to be measured by tests. The model is: pour these skills into kids; then measure. Wrong from the start.
The new “standards” are full of glaring lacunae, and specific “standards” often codify highly questionable, highly unwarranted assumptions about specific matters, turning those assumptions into the equivalent of the LAW.
The new “standards” will do enormous harm. To the extent that they do not, it will be because a) there are well-meaning people who will act in accordance with the general framework and who will ignore the “letter of the law” of these “standards” b) there will be people who will teach well DESPITE these amateurish “standards.”
“There’s no bullet list like Stalin’s bullet list.”
LikeLike
AL Shanker once said something like this: “When school boards call teachers “lazy good-for-nothings” and teachers call board members “nincompoops” the public believes both of them.”
LikeLike
Diane is wise and astute, as usual. The “left” has a long and agonizing history of self-immolation – with more time spent bickering among themselves than fighting the other side. Seemingly very little has changed. The teacher unions, both at the local and national level have the resources to pursue policies and the political clout to back it up. I give Randi credit for answeringing Mercedes in such detail.
Change is made at the polling place and in the corridors of power: in city halls, in state legislatures and in the halls of Congress. Changing the direction of education means changing “No Child Left Behind,” and that is an extraordinarily difficult lift. To simply say that anything Gates or Board supports is inherently bad is emotionally satisfying but politically ineffective. Changing long established laws requires coalitions – you may not love your coalition partners – you need each other to bring about change.
To bring about change Diane and Randi and Mercedes and the blogging networks must work together.
I see the Common Core, at least at the secondary level as aspirational goals- not signiificantly different than the standards of the past.
Railing against “corporate takeovers” must be converted into achievable policies … Randi has the ability to coalesce divergent groups, and to write op eds for the NY Times … with Randi and Diane we can change the direction of wrongful ed policies.
LikeLike
Mercedes Schneider’s blog post repeats a false and malicious account of Randi Weingarten’s teaching and, on this basis, accuses Randi of misrepresenting her experience. Her post is a direct attack on Randi’s personal integrity.
It is one thing to criticize, even heatedly and vehemently, political positions; it is quite another matter to engage in unscrupulous personal attacks, as Schneider has done.
What makes this personal attack by Schneider especially offensive is that it is based on a smear mounted by the New York City Department of Education under Joel Klein in retaliation for Randi’s criticisms of its Children First corporate education reforms, a smear that has since been taken up by anti-union forces on the far right.
What makes this personal attack by Schneider inexcusable is that a simple Google search leads one to an open letter from Randi’s supervisors, colleagues and students at Clara Barton High School. The letter refutes this smear and provides insight into how those with direct knowledge of Randi’s teaching viewed it and her. (The full text of this open letter is included at the end of this post.)
I am one of the signatories on that open letter.
I first met Randi Weingarten in September 1987, on the steps of a New York City courthouse. She was counsel for the United Federation of Teachers, and I was a social studies teacher at Clara Barton High School in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. In a saga I have recounted elsewhere in some detail, in 1984 the New York City Board of Education (as it was then called) had begun renovation on the Clara Barton school building—with us in it. After three years of disruption and dislocation, we had returned to our building a few days before it was to open for a new school year and found it filled with debris and a thick layer of dust. I enlisted the White Lung Association and a prominent law firm in our cause, and with their help, a court closed our building. The air and the dust were tested, and friable (loose) asbestos—a dangerous carcinogen when inhaled or ingested—was found. The school building remained closed for two months while a top-to-bottom cleanup and asbestos abatement were completed. I ended up working closely with Randi during a number of court hearings and as she negotiated, with our input, a protocol for the completion of the renovation of our school building. This protocol became the basis of protocols for all subsequent school construction work in New York City.
As we worked together, Randi and I became good friends. We discovered we had a common passion for teaching, and we shared notes on teaching students at Clara Barton and at the Cardozo School of Law, where she had taught. I was something of an evangelist for teaching in an inner-city high school, but Randi was in no need of conversion: She told me that she wanted to teach in a New York City high school, in part because she believed it was very important social justice work and in part because she felt the experience of “walking the walk” of New York City school teachers would make her a better advocate on their behalf. I told her that the Clara Barton staff was grateful for what she had done on behalf of our school, and that we would welcome her to our faculty if her work with the UFT allowed her to teach.
In 1991, Randi took up that invitation and started teaching at Clara Barton. Randi and I co-taught a class in political science, and she taught courses in American history and government, law, and ethical issues in medicine, a public policy course for Clara Barton’s nursing students. The essential facets of Randi’s teaching are addressed in the open letter from her supervisors, colleagues and students reproduced below.
Two accusations repeated by Schneider need to be put to rest. I speak from firsthand knowledge in both instances.
First, the only time during her teaching at Clara Barton that Randi and I discussed her future role in the leadership of the UFT was after Al Shanker became seriously ill with cancer and then passed away in early 1997. Sandy Feldman had taken on the job of AFT president as Al’s successor, and it was clear she could not also continue as UFT president for long. It was only when Sandy had asked Randi to consider standing for UFT president that Randi and I discussed for the first time what she should do. The notion that Randi taught at Clara Barton in order to become UFT president ignores the obvious fact that no one could possibly have known that Al Shanker would be taken from us well before his time.
Second, the “evidence” used to dispute Randi’s account of her teaching was the manufactured product of a personal attack on her mounted by City Hall and the New York City Department of Education. At the UFT’s 2003 spring conference, Randi announced the union’s opposition to the Children First corporate reforms of the Bloomberg-Klein Department of Education. The response from City Hall and Tweed was immediate. Rumors were circulated about Randi’s sexual orientation. Her personal finances were investigated. Neighbors reported that strange men were surveilling and photographing her house. Officials in the DOE passed word that they were being ordered to provide copies of Randi’s confidential personnel files over their objections. Then, two weeks after the UFT’s spring conference, Wayne Barrett published a story in the Village Voice that took up the Bloomberg-Klein cudgels. Barrett wrote that Randi had not taught real classes but was a day-to-day substitute teacher, and that she was absent three days for every day she was present. Using the passive voice, Barrett wrote that “records reviewed by the Voice” were the basis for these claims. We will probably never know what documents were shown to Barrett by the Bloomberg-Klein administration or what they actually reflected, but we do know that the conclusions he printed about Randi’s teaching were entirely false, and that they were part of a smear against Randi conducted in retaliation for the UFT’s opposition to the NYC DOE’s Children First policies.
It is passing strange that those who claim to be the strongest opponents of corporate education reform and who characterize everyone else as weak and vacillating would now be spreading these false and malicious charges. It is beyond odd that self-styled opponents of corporate education reform would be not be focusing on opposition to privatization and austerity, were we would all seem to have common cause, but in mounting personal attacks on Randi Weingarten. If nothing else, it shows their lack of confidence in their own arguments against the AFT’s principled support for the Common Core standards and its strong opposition to the destructive ways in which too many states and districts have implemented them that they have to resort to personal attacks. That’s pretty sad.
Leo Casey
OPEN LETTER
To whom it may concern,
We have learned of publications that challenge the teaching record and accomplishments of American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, disputing the account provided in her official AFT biography. The allegation is that Randi was a substitute teacher who did not teach regular Social Studies classes at Clara Barton High School from 1991 to 1997. Further, it is claimed that she was never observed or evaluated by the school’s Principal or Assistant Principals.
We were students, professional colleagues and supervisors of Randi Weingarten in the years she taught at Clara Barton High School. We have first-hand knowledge of her teaching, and know that these allegations are completely unfounded.
Those of us who were students of Randi know that she taught us in regular classes, from U.S. History and Government and Advanced Placement Political Science to Law and Ethical Issues in Medicine, and that she was in class virtually every day to teach us. A number of us had the privilege of studying with Randi when she prepared our Political Science class for participation in the national We The People civics competition, and our class won the New York State championship and placed high in the nationals. She gave countless hours, before and after school, on weekends and on holidays, to ensure that we would be able to do our very best. We know Randi to be an excellent teacher, completely dedicated to her students.
Those of us who were professional colleagues of Randi know that while teaching at Clara Barton, Randi taught the same regular classes that every teacher teaches, and that she was in her classes virtually every day. We know Randi to be a master teacher who was supportive of her colleagues. She was a welcome presence in our professional community.
Those of us who were supervisors of her know that like other Social Studies teachers at Clara Barton, Randi’s teaching was observed and she was evaluated by the Assistant Principal for Social Studies and the Principal. We know Randi to be a conscientious educator who was ever mindful of fulfilling her obligations to the young people she taught and committed to the mission of our school and the inner city community it served.
Marsha Boncy-Danticat§
Leo Casey§
Madison Cuffy*
Connie Cuttle§
Fania Denton*
Thomas Dillon¶
Tamika Lawrence Edwards*
Sean Edwards*
Jacqueline Foster¶
Zinga Fraser*
Judith Garcia¶
Karen Gazis§
Renne Gross§
Gail Lewis Jacobs*
Keith William Lee*
Joshua Medina*
Andrew Mirer§
Maurice Pahalan§
Joseph Picciano§
Elizabeth Ramos Mahon*
Judieann Spencer-McCall*
Tina Vurgaropulos§.
§: Was a Clara Barton teacher or guidance counselor colleague
*: Was a Clara Barton student
¶: Was a Clara Barton supervisor
LikeLike
Let me note that in my open letter, I neither mention nor link to any sources that I counted as less than credible.
Randi decided to bring names into this discourse. That was her decision.
My concerns are legitimate. Randi has been elected as AFT president. I am an AFT member. As such, I should be allowed to ask for her to account for decisions associated with her role as AFT president.
I did ask Weingarten how many semesters of full time teaching she has to her credit.
If this is malicious, then our democracy is in big trouble.
LikeLike
deutsch29: it appears to me that in this case Mr. Leo Casey seems to have fallen into the “lexiles” argument.
Sheer word count and the constant repetition of refutations of irrelevant straw men accusations do not add up to a cogent case. Facts, logic and the ethical use of expertise are most needed.
I think we all need to throw out Dr. Steve Perry’s pompous nonsense: “Men lie and women lie but numbers don’t.” [channeled from rapper Jay-Z]
IMHO, massaged metrics are antithetical to both union ideals and union effectiveness. Just look at what Michelle Rhee’s claim of taking her students from the 13th to the 90th percentile has done to her credibility.
I respectfully call on Ms. Weingarten to thank you for pointing out the fatal deficiencies in the 75% support of CC claim.
That said, I genuinely thank her for engaging in dialogue with you. I hope it can go forward.
🙂
LikeLike
“Sheer word count and the constant repetition of refutations of irrelevant straw men accusations do not add up to a cogent case.”
Spot on , as always, KTA!
LikeLike
Readers of Diane’s blog have been “treated” to something that UFT members in NYC came to reliably expect over the years: a wordy attempt by Leo Casey to defend the indefensible.
As usual, his apologia for Randi has a very low signal-to noise ratio, and uses the time (dis)honored attempt to misdirect readers into seeing substantive questioning and criticism as a personal attack.
Notice, for example, that the open letter attesting to Randi’s wonderfulness as a teacher does not refute the charge that she only taught full time for one semester.
As for Casey’s claim that questions about Weingarten’s teaching experience were fed to the media by Bloomberg and Klein because of Weingarten’s staunch opposition to Children First and other attacks on teachers and public education, it’s preposterous on its face.
For example, Weingarten supported mayoral control of the schools – the primary vehicle for destabilizing and privatizing them – not once, but twice. The second time occurred in 2009, when it was up for re-authorization by the state legislature, and she unilaterally disregarded the recommendations of her own Governance Committee (of which I was a dissenting member) to call for continued dictatorial control of the schools by the Mayor. In the years since, dozens of schools have been closed, thousands of teachers have had their careers destroyed by being thrown into the garbage heap of the ATR pool- where senior teachers are turned into abused substitutes – the entire school system was intentionally destabilized, and charters (including the UFT’s) were given grossly favorable treatment at the expense of the public schools.
That same year, she did nothing to oppose Bloomberg’s illegal purchase of a third term, and had her successor give him a de facto endorsement by remaining neutral in an election where he was vulnerable. In 2009, she also proclaimed that Bloomberg’s control of the schools had brought “stability” to the system.
As a UFT Delegate and Chapter leader during most of the Weingarten years, I can personally bear witness to the fact that she would play a slippery game of good cop/bad cop when referring to Klein and Bloomberg, attacking Klein for policies that he was clearly implementing on behalf of City Hall.
When Bloomberg and Klein announced their bogus increase in test scores – one of them conveniently held shortly before the 2005 mayoral election – Weingarten was there.
When Broad announced that NYC had “won” his Foundation’s meaningless award, Weingarten was there. Of course she was, because as the Foundation stated in its 2009 report, she was one of its “investments.”
In addition to accepting millions of dollars in Gates Foundation blood money, Weingarten had her apparatchiks shout down teachers who opposed that man’s desecration of the 2010 AFT convention, where she allowed him to be the keynote speaker.
Sorry, Leo, you’re still defending the indefensible, only this time, teachers nationally are waking up to the betrayals of Weingarten and Unity Caucus, which is currently dishonoring itself by co-managing the implementation of the Common Corporate Standards and the Danielson checklists.
That, and spending $250,000 of our political action committee money supporting a pro-casino gambling referendum this Tuesday.
Any future history of this sordid era will be incomplete if it does not address Weingarten’s cynical enabling of the forces that attacked public education and teachers. Mr. Casey’s defense of Weingarten, if it is noted at all, will be seen as evidence of how the UFT/AFT misleadership wasted energy in trying to divert and distract teachers, when it should have been defending them and the public schools.
LikeLike
Michael,
You forgot to mention – although your comment is thorough and beautifully crafted – that executive members of the UFT and AFT get separate salaries and separate pensions in addition to their original teacher sources of income.
Such members and their fidelity, as in those in the Unity caucus, are bought and paid for. Leo Casey is no exception.
The union giving money to support casinos is deranged and sordid indeed. An education outfit supporting what is a corrosive, addicting habit is grotesque, hideous, and indicative of a decadent epoch.
Diane, as you are non-unionized, in fighting produces better products, better outcomes, and better organizations. I woulod contend that when your ally and ally’s leaders lead you into the battle fighting along side the enemy instead of against the enemy, it is time for some mutiny. Diane, you are an education historian, and I just don’t see how you can minimize all the horrendous things Randi Weingarten and those under her political umbrella have done . . . . But here is an instance where I can agee to disagree with the permanently revered and cherished host of this blog . . . .
LikeLike
Robert,
You are right, I could have gone on and on about Weingarten/Mulgrew’s duplicity and disingenuousness.
You mention the double pensions UFT/AFT executives receive, and you are right about that outrage, which gives ammunition to those who attack unions.
What do they do to get those double pensions? Well, at the very beginning, they sign a loyalty oath, promising to follow the (Unity) Party Line, no matter what.
Attend a UFT Delegate Assembly, and you will be horrified at the arrogant filibustering of Michael Mulgrew, and the depressing passivity and willful self-deception rampant in the room. Far too many Chapter Leaders and Delegates are squirming in their seats to get the Big Guy’s attention with their conformity.
After all, he and Weingarten’s “leadership” have helped make the schools so toxic that people are desperate to get out of the class room, so that signing a loyatly oath and selling out your colleagues seems a reasonable price to pay.
LikeLike
Thank you, Leo, for your fine contribution to this blog.
Change is always difficult, and perhaps, most difficult for ourselves. As educators, we demand the best efforts from our students. Maybe it is time that we give greater effort into truly honing the craft of educating.
Sometimes we need to admit that the way we instruct may be “good enough”, but is it really current best practice? Before we throw the Common Core out with the bath water, we need to assess it’s positives and negatives. If we are all doing such a fine job, why are our students failing? How can we give them the skills they need to survive it all? Despite all arguments, these are the things we are up against, so we need to use it to our advantage.
Our AFT president, Randi Weingarten, is simply calling out the professional in all of us as teachers. She has been and is a model of what a teacher should strive to be. She is an inspiration and a strong motivator because she proactively chose to respond to her vocation to teach and embody the ideals of what makes our union great. I am proud of her role as leader and I feel that defaming her character with misinformation is both devisive and unproductive.
This is not to say that we are not experiencing growing pains! We certainly are and it is painful. However, the process of learning how to implement new standards and dealing with evaluations are meant to be formative and produce growth in us as professionals.
There is nothing inherently “evil” about the Common Core. The research indicates that a common scale will ensure reliable, though different increases. The CCSS will be an effective tool in improving reading instruction only inasmuch as the instructor provides the strategies that students need in order to learn. Thus, the CCSS gives teachers a “direction”. Strategies must be taught as a tool for understanding anything students read or learn now or in the future!
In defense of close reading: the CCSS’ intent is that all classroom members have an equal footing when reading a complex text. Fluency is nothing without comprehension. Fluency instruction is powerful when it is taught in the context of a students’ attempt to make sense of a specific text. What is important is the maintenance of understanding across the text. The integrated view of the CCSS recognizes the need for reflection, sharing amongst students, and using the knowledge gleaned from the text. I believe that is what Randi is referring to as the “four corners of the page”.
Thus, the CCSS minimizes the role of the teacher as the provider of knowledge in the room, giving his or her own interpretation to the events surrounding an informational text, and emphasizes the text as the source of common knowledge that a student would get tested on. The purity of the text is delivered on it’s own, and
appreciated on it’s own merits. Certainly (and the CCSS do not negate this), there is need for clarification and tying information to background knowledge.
When I, as the instructional leader in my classroom, can model how to use the necessary tools/strategies to make connections, compare and contrast, ask pertinent questions of the author, and explore the conventions of text, my students will find it easier to wade through text complexities. By discovering layers of meaning in vocabulary-rich text through explicit and effective instruction, our students will become independent readers. All students will be able to grow as readers because they will have the access and exposure to complex ideas and text.
Teaching is a process of growing the minds of our students. I am encouraged that our leadership through AFT is not backing away from the challenges of teacher development. I choose to grow professionally. I want to be surrounded by colleagues who rise to this challenge as well. I need to be confident that the teacher before me has taught the skills necessary for students to come to my class ready and prepared for the challenges I ask of them. I should not have to remediate in order to play catch up when I could be growing my students to the next level. This has been the nightmare of education, especially in poor, urban settings.
Therese Gordon
TFT Local 250
Toledo, Ohio
LikeLike
Common Core was not created democratically. It was not adopted democratically:
If you want to keep Rosemary’s baby and its bathwater, do so.
My school district formally denounced it on October 10, 2013.
LikeLike
Congrats on winning this battle in your district, Mercedes! One down, 30 thousand plus to go!
LikeLike
Thanks to Mercedes for addressing this matter, and to you for posting it, Diane.
You are correct that people on the same side should not engage in internecine battles when they are fighting for their lives.
Where you are wrong, however, is to include Randi Weingarten as part of our side. Her actions over the years – supporting and collaborating with Michael Bloomberg, accepting Gates and Broad money, doing nothing to stop the metastasizing of charter schools, helicoptering in to negotiate contracts that are transparently anti-teacher and anti-public education, co-managing the implementation of the Common Corporate Standards and test-based teacher evaluations, etc. – conclusively demonstrate that she is one of Them.
Like the so-called reformers she is proud to “collaborate” with, she is slippery and deceptive about her teaching background. The fact of the matter is, like Rhee, White and others, she had a cup of coffee in the classroom, yet claims to speak for public school teachers and students.
Public school teachers will not begin to repel the attacks on them and public education until the Weingarten’s, Mulgrew’s and Van Roekal’s, the misleaders of teacher unions, are rejected by the people they claim to represent, and replaced by real leaders, rather than self-promoting posers.
Thankfully, parents are waking up to what is happening to their children and their schools; teachers seem all too overwhelmed, distracted and/or apathetic to what is happening to them.
And the Weingarten’s of the world, empty soundbites notwithstanding, are intent on keeping it that way.
LikeLike
Note how Randi defenders will not address the UFT charter school school issue. For those not aware, Peter Goodman’s son was chosen as the principal of the UFT middle school charter.
Randi was the chosen successor by Feldman and Shanker, possibly as early as the late 80s. Sometime around 90-92 My chapter leader, a member of Unity Caucus, told me how upset people were that Randi was being jumped ahead of the popular Allan Lubin as a successor – that in fact she had to get a teaching credential and teaching experience before she could become president. Unity ran her for one of the top positions in an election in ’93 I believe by replacing another popular caucus figure.
Friends at Clara Barton knew when she showed up that she would be the next UFT president and treated her that way. And she misleads in the Shanker illness story.
According to the Kahlenberg bio he got cancer in the early 90s – coinciding with Randi’s move to teach — it was clear that Sandy would have to move up at some point in the next few years and so they rushed to get Randi ready. The UFT/AFT is a monarchy.
While I agree it is not important whether she taught for a day or years the fact is she did not enter teaching with any more intention of making it a career than most TFAers. I saw time and again how she did not understand so much of what goes on in teaching.
LikeLike
The issue of clearly stating credentials is one of integrity.
And I am sure some of those disturbed by being “passed over’ would disagree that putting in the years is part of the process of being counted worthy of promotion.
Your analogy to TFA carries here. TFAers think they know enough about teaching in order to become education leaders. Do they? Is their two years enough to lead the profession?
So, there is a twofold issue: One of bypassing substantive professional experience in a profession one would lead, and another of having the leadership goal in mind with classroom experience as a necessary hurdle to achieving the “real” goal. Both of these cheapen the teaching profession.
LikeLike
agree, not disagree. sorry.
LikeLike
agree not disagree
LikeLike
Reblogged this on 21st Century Theater and commented:
This exchange highlights multiple elements at work in the struggle for public education – from without and within. While internecine battles may be interesting to some, everyone can learn one important fact from this exchange:
Corporate money (and more specifically in this case, money from Bill Gates) is shaping the debate and shaping policy.
There are millions of people who have simple, unresearched, reactions to the role of corporations in education, from the massive infusion of technology into schools to corporate “partnerships.” These are these not simple questions and they are taking place in a context that even many of the players are unaware of: Corporate control implemented with a neoliberal agenda. A good way to begin to begin to understand neoliberalism is that privatization is one of its key elements, but its scope is much wider and it extends into almost every aspect of our lives and throughout the world.
Here are a few links to get started educating yourself about what neoliberalism is and how it is being used by corporations and the politicians they buy to reshape our lives and the entire planet:
http://21stcenturytheater.wordpress.com/?s=neoliberalism
LikeLike
Randi Weingarten’s resume is not the issue. Randi Weingarten’s personal support for the Common Core State Standards is not the issue. Her opinions about those standards should be welcomed AS PART OF A NATIONAL DEBATE on the part of A FREE PEOPLE who HAVE THE POWER to consider the evidence and DECIDE THEMSELVES which among various COMPETING STANDARDS they want to adopt and adapt and continually revisit and adapt some more.
What NO ONE has the right to do is to make the decision about what outcomes are desirable at each grade level, for every student, for everyone else in the country. The teachers whom Ms. Weingarten represents are not imbeciles who have to be told precisely what these outcomes must be, who can manage to flourish only to the extent that they do NOT act autonomously.
Leaving aside the poor quality of these putative “standards,” It astonishes me that anyone would think that promulgating a single, invariant, inflexible set of standards for everyone is a good idea given how much kids differ and given the breathtaking variety of alternative approaches to English language arts instruction that are possible. Why would anyone want to STOP COLD any thinking about these matters and turn this important job of deciding what the outcomes of our courses of study should be to a distant, centralized, totalitarian authority? Why would a leader of teachers want to take that power away from teachers, to turn them into programmed robots: “Pull my string to begin lesson CCSS.ELA.RI.7.3a”? Have we learned NOTHING from the horror that was NCLB and from the pedagogy-and-curriculum narrowing state standards that spawned by that legislation?
It is my fervent hope that Ms. Weingarten and others who represent teachers will come to recognize that we are best served when local teachers, working together collaboratively, have the power to decide upon the outcomes that they think are desirable for those elementary and secondary education in their care and to revise these local standards (or frameworks) continually based upon reflection on their own practice, on the needs of their particular student populations, on emerging approaches to language arts curricula and pedagogy, and on the relevant cognitive science.
If unions want to meddle in frameworks, standards, pedagogy, and curricula, then what they should be doing is encouraging debate by creating forums for sharing of best practices and of alternative visions, not joining with deformers to issue top-down mandates for all. And they should be working to get, for teachers, the paid time that they need to submit their own practice to collaborative Lesson Study so that THEY, not some distant authority, can make continuous improvements.
If the CCSS in ELA had not been written. If, instead, the Publishers’ Criteria, alone, had been promulgated as a VOLUNTARY SET OF GUIDELINES meant to stimulate debate, then there would be reason for those who represent teachers to embrace them (subject to the proviso that all such frameworks should be, always, subject to competition from alternative frameworks and to ongoing debate and revision).
But why would someone who represents teachers want to take away their autonomy and to encourage the dramatic narrowing and distortion of our pedagogy and curricula to meet an inflexible, invariant, backward set of standards put together by a small group of amateurs appointed by a few plutocrats? That entirely escapes me.It simply doesn’t make any sense.
LikeLike
It’s curious to me that we are questioning the credentials of our leaders from within during a time when the right wing has moved to turn the educational system into a corporation where Chancellors, Superintendents and teachers need not have any educational experience at all. We are fortunate enough to have a president who understood and directed collective bargaining, could litigate a case in court against those who seek to destroy public education, and had the practical experience of being in a classroom. It’s one thing to engage in educational theory, it’s something entirely different to understand its practice. Those who question her service, who are on the side of protecting the rights of the workers, and improving public schools for all children should redirect their energy to those who seek to destroy us.
At the core, we all believe that our children should and deserve to have common standards in the classroom. Very few will deny that those standards need to be consistent regardless of your geographic location in a state or across the country. The problem before us is that some of those standards are not developmentally appropriate and that needs to be fixed. We don’t have the curriculum in place to help us meet those standards and it’s shameful. Nor do we have the professional development necessary to to help us in our practice. It is imperative that we take the time to align the standards to the curriculum and the training so that we can give students what they need to be sucessful. That is why the AFT has called for a moritorium on the Common Core Standards so that these problems can be fixed. We cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. Frankly, I don’t care what title you give it. If these things are in place, we can suceed and our children can as well. The educators with whom I’ve spoken feel the same way.
To take a survey or present a resolution on what we are opposed to and not give an option of what we stand for is worse than giving a false choice. It is not giving them a choice at all. You must ask the next question if you expect any of my colleagues to engage you in serious dialogue. You’re way off base on this one. Our leadership MUST be solution driven.
LikeLike
The LAST THING that we need are COMMON STANDARDS for everyone. We need varying approaches, as befits education in a complex, diverse society of free people. There are many, many alternative approaches to each of the domains covered by these amateurish “standards,” and forcing everyone to use these precludes employing those approaches AND ANY OTHERS THAT PEOPLE MIGHT DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE. Those who argue that the “standards” are not pedagogy and are not curricula do not understand how much these ignorant, backward “standards” constrain the possibilities for our teaching. A free people will oppose any invariant, top-down mandate like the CC$$ in ELA.
LikeLike
Everyday Educator:
The CC$$ in ELA are equivalent to science standards that tell teachers that students must understand that space is filled with ether, that fire is caused by phlogiston, and that a moving body stops moving when it uses up its internal force. The putative standards enshrine a lot of backward notions and preclude a lot of real innovation in curricula and pedagogy. I see this every day. Publishers of educational materials have a stock answer any time one suggests an innovative approach to teaching in one of the domains covered by the new “standards”: “That’s not in the CC$$.”
Is this what you want? Do you really want to hit the pause button on innovation in ELA? Do you really accept that David Coleman and Susan Pimentel should be the absolute monarchs of education in the English language arts in the United States and that NO ONE else–no expert in language acquisition, in literature, in rhetoric, in discourse theory, in writing–no one else–should be heard or have an opportunity to have his or her ideas considered IF THEY DO NOT MATCH WHAT WAS SAID IN KING DAVID AND QUEEN SUSAN’S BULLET LIST?
Guess what? There are many, many approaches to teaching in these domains that Coleman and Pimentel never dreamed of.
LikeLike
Robert,
You are correct that Weingarten’s resume is not the issue. What is the issue is her honesty, the lack of which is revealed by her posing as an educator while enabling attacks on teachers, students and public education.
LikeLike
Reading Randi Weingarten’s letter, I ask myself, “Why isn’t a woman this wonderful vehemently opposed to invariant, top-down, standards mandated by a distant, centralized, totalitarian authority. She ought to be a natural ally of those who are fighting this juggernaut.
Ms. Weingarten, I really want to keep singing this song:
Join us in the fight against these amateurish, totalitarian “standards.”
LikeLike
Well said Dr. Ravitch. Divide and conquer is a familiar strategy by tyrants in areas of political endeavor. Education should be about looking for “glimmers of truth” wherever they are found. I have several friends who are diametrically opposed to my political philosophy but I have said over and over again, you do not have to believe what I believe to be my friend and also, if we can sit down and discuss amicably our different opinions maybe we both can learn something.
LikeLike
Today AFT went down the chain to reach my local union president and ask her to “rein me in.” My school union rep told me. No kidding. But my local union president doesn’t try to make teachers follow her wishes. She finds out what teachers want to do and then helps us do it.
AFT communicated down the chain that they are concerned I will incite a protest. I don’t incite protests. When told to “talk to me” by one on the regional level, my local union president responded, “And tell her what?”
Funny– the Common Core protests have already transpired and brought about results in my district– including open support from our local union president:
LikeLike
Mercedes, I support you like the Rock of Gibralter. Your local union rep sounds decent.
Now everyone can see the fascism behind the AFT. . . . thank goodness it was stopped at your local level.
It would be a gift if you did incite protests . . .protests are what gave us unions our the the 1930’s and the civil rights movement in the 1960’s.
LikeLike
Correction: ” . . . unions out of the 1930’s . . . . “
LikeLike
This totalitarian centralization of educational authority isn’t going to stop with our K-12 schools. There is a movement afoot to give our public colleges and universities a Common Coring, too.
The forces behind this centralization of control are very, very powerful. Our country is now run by a small group of very wealthy people who can pretty much buy whatever future they want for the rest of us. But it will be interesting to see what happens when the attempt to enforce standardization of outcomes to be measured via bullet lists of standards like those of the CC$$ and via standardization of tests, of curricula and pedagogy, of evaluation systems, of databases for recording student responses, and of portals for curriculum delivery meet the traditional values of academic freedom so dear to professors in our colleges and universities. Very interesting, indeed.
Those who do not respect freedom of thought have had their way with our K-12 schools. They have managed to skirt the laws that protected us from federally mandated curricula and that ensured the privacy of students’ school records. They have managed to enforce their will via backroom deals. They have created an astonishingly effective PR mechanism, even to the extent of getting both national teachers’ unions to become their Ministries of Propaganda. This is especially troubling because those are the institutions that are supposed to PROTECT teachers from having their autonomy taken away from them. It’s chilling that those institutions are collaborating in the destruction of K-12 academic freedom. As any older teacher knows, the days of K-12 academic freedom are gone. The new teachers don’t even have a clue what having such freedom might mean.
We are now well down the path toward the establishment of a K-12 Common Core Curriculum Commissariat and Ministry of Truth. So far, the oligarchs have met with little resistance. They have completely undone an essential component of democracy–the freedom of people to make the most important decisions about the education of their children–with almost no opposition.
EVERY TOTALITARIAN STATE has a centralized educational system in which all authority flows from the top. EVERY SUCH STATE has its invariant, mandated national “standards.” This is no accident. It’s essential for the operation of such a state to have such an educational system.
As this thing grows, as the oligarchs gain more ground, they will become more and more brazen, more and more ruthless about crushing dissent. The phone call to Ms. Schneider’s union rep is NOTHING compared to what will start happening soon. In East Germany in the old days, such a phone call would mean the immediate firing of the one who needed to be “reined in.” And perhaps the beginning of a reeducation process. This is what history teaches us about centralization of power in the hands of a small, distant, absolute authority. Power corrupts. Absolute power (these are your standards; you have no say in them; this decision has been made for you) corrupts absolutely.
Delaying the tests is a technical fix to a problem with the implementation of the totalitarian regime. It ENABLES that implementation by removing one of the inevitable problems that the more zealous of the totalitarians don’t wish to acknowledge. Anyone with half a brain can see that if these new tests are given in 2014, there will be a great backlash against the whole deform agenda.
Again, the new “standards” are the engine that runs the entire totalitarian deform juggernaut. They are the sine qua non for the deforms, the necessary first step on which the rest depends. Anyone who cares at all about liberty will oppose these.
LikeLike
Mercedes- what’s up with this comment? I don’t normally answer comments on blogs–even Diane’s but your implication is untrue and required a response. You and I emailed frequently over the last 2 weekends, and you thanked me for answering you open letter- which you posted in many venues….and now after the very public exchange of views this allegation that I or someone in the 1.5 million member AFT tried to silence you. Cmon. The AFT is a big tent with many points of views- and my actions (which on Sunday you applauded, and now you criticize) quite obviously demonstrate my sincere welcoming of debate.
LikeLike
It happened. End of story.
LikeLike
Randi, how many full time semesters did you teach?
LikeLike
“my sincere welcoming of debate.” That’s superb, for that’s what has been lacking. That and mechanisms for getting before the public informed, expert critique of the amateurish CC$$ in ELA and of the whole idea of invariant standards for all.
LikeLike
Diane Ravitch is absolutely right that we need a civil debate about these matters. That someone from AFT called Meredes’s local does not mean that Randi Weingarten had anything to do with this.
I have myself been vocal on this blog about my horror that the AFT his propagandized for the Common Core. Everyone must understand that emotions are going to run high on these issues because there is so much at stake. I have been accused of being angry about the CC$$. Well, I guess that I am, a bit, but my emotions on this subject run more to worry than to anger.
I’m a writer of textbooks and online materials. I have been all my life. And now I spend my time listening to publishers tell me that any approach not specifically sanctioned by the new “standards” cannot be taken, no matter how based in good classroom practice and in the cognitive sciences of learning and language acquisition it might be. All that matters is whether the approach “matches the standards”–that is, whether it matches a bullet list of the most hackneyed ideas about the teaching of English, which is a spot-on description of the CC$$ in ELA. It’s a list of cliches about the teaching of English, many of which don’t stand up under scrutiny. There’s good stuff in the Publishers’ Criteria document, but the “standards” themselves are amateurish and backward. But that’s not my only concern. Kids differ. They differ a lot. And those differences need to be recognized, honored, and built upon. We are not running factories for the milling of identical machine parts. We are running schools to produce citizens of an extremely complex, diverse, pluralistic society.
“I believe in standardization of automobiles, not people.” –Albert Einstein
LikeLike
Ms. Weingarten, if you truly “welcome debate,” then you will welcome having competing, voluntary standards, not an invariant, inflexible, one-size-fits-all bullet list that no one has any choice but to follow, whatever their disagreements with it and however informed those disagreements might be.
LikeLike
Randi has succeeded in her campaign to have all of you talking and thinking about how to reform education in a thoughtful and critical way. Twenty years ago the only people looking for solutions were textbook makers and test makers. That’s what I call organizing in my book.
LikeLike
You think this is Randi’s campaign? You think there is conversation about “reform in a thoughtful and critical way”?
When has Weingarten critically appraised Common Core?
When has she ever openly and seriously questioned its origins?
Even her “moratorium” on testing is a band aid. Temporary.
No, no. Randi Weingarten does not intend to critically consider Common Core. As far as she is concerned, it is a done deal.
LikeLike
I find it interesting you criticize President Weingarten for her position based on input from members like me, but are you not doing what you accuse her of? It seems you have your opinion, based on your views, and the views of some, but do not want to consider the views of others. Based on my interactions with President Weingarten, as minimal as they have been, she has always responded come across as someone who considers all facts before commenting. Just because you may not agree with her position, does not mean she has not critically looked at an issue. I would not say that about you because I have a different point of view than you do. Have a conversation/discussion is one thing – doing it in a meaningful and classy way is another.
LikeLike
Interesting conversation. As an AFT and NEA member, I’m disappointed that we are not having this conversation in house, but instead are allowing this to be folly for all who wish to tear about the very fabric of our union. I support CCSS and do a lot of teachers I know. I know not everyone does, but bashing those who do, does damage to our profession. Both unions have done separate polling that came to the same conclusion, most teachers support the premise and promise of CCSS. What we do not support is the high stakes environment, the profiting off our students and the demoralizing of our profession.
We can duck our head in the sand and blame everyone or we can do as President Weingarten has done and be a relevant part of the conversation and our destiny. We can lead our profession to prominence or we fight over our demise. I am not a fan of Bill Gates or anyone else who has no idea what we do. However, even Gates has changed his tune. He has recently acknowledged that there is too much testing. That reform takes years. I believe in taking on our foes by doing what we do best – educating them. I urge everyone to work together on the real challenges and not turn on each other. President Weingaten as elevated our union and made us relevant. I am greatful to have her as our leader.
LikeLike
Are both Diane and Randi supporting the disaster in waiting of deBlasio?
LikeLike
Finally, a righteous finger pointing and an I-told-you-so gesture from Harlan.
Finally, Harlan, we can thank you for some levity by you just being you.
LikeLike
Although, okay, you have a point. I hate it when you may be right . . . .
LikeLike
Robert Rendo: with all due respect, even a broken clock is right two times a day.
Just sayin’…
🙂
LikeLike
Yes, Harlan, and they’ve probably probably enlisted in The War on Coal, too.
LikeLike
There has been a clear “call” for certain commentary to my blog– a concentration of commentary that is not happening in the other four places where it could be, including here.
Let me offer the latest:
“‘You publicly support CCSS, and you maintain that 75 percent of teachers also support CCSS.
If this were true, then teachers speaking out in favor of keeping CCSS would outnumber dissenters three to one.
Where are all of these scores of teacher supporters for CCSS now?’
I’ll tell you where they are. They are planning lessons, grading papers, and taking care of all their other responsibilities as teachers. The majority of our teachers do not blog or tweet. The majority of teachers do not want to be involved in this discussion. It is typical that the loudest voices you hear are the dissenters.
What amazes me is this assumption that many seem to be making that if the Common Core goes away, so will all the testing and other problems that are associated with implementation. They won’t. The same problems will still exist whether it is with current standards, Common Core standards, or some yet unwritten standards.
Are some of our members opposed to Common Core standards? Absolutely! I have yet to see anything that gets 100% support from a large body of people. However, when I talk with members who say they are opposed, nine times out of ten, it is not the standards they oppose, it is the testing, the overuse of test results in evaluations, and various other implementation problems. Again, I believe that the fixation on the testing and accountability will continue no matter what standards are in place.
Are the standards the silver bullet for all the problems in education? Of course not. But neither are they the cause of all our problems in education. Instead of continuing to battle about the standards, we should be raising our voices in unity over the impact of poverty, the opportunity gaps that exist, the unfair funding systems in our states, the expansion of vouchers to privatize education, the growing number of children in our schools who do not have access to the care they need, and the continued attacks on the educators who try to solve all these problems.
Thank you Randi Weingarten for trying to tackle all these problems plus many more. Thank you for not backing down in the face of adversity and for being persistent in demanding that implementation of Common Core is done right. Thank you for being relentless in fighting for equity for all students. Thank you for being passionate in your support of teachers and public education. Thank you for always putting actions behind your words. Thank you taking the time to publicly respond so thoroughly to the questions posed to you and for always taking time for your members in spite of all the demands on your time. Thank you.”
LikeLike
deutsch29: the comments you reproduce—like others on your blog—are all over the map. IMHO, the only coherent point they make is that Ms. Weingarten is above being questioned by members of the AFT. It should be the opposite: she should be accountable, first and foremost and above all, to the people she represents. That means all the members of the AFT.
In all honesty, though, the high-water [?] mark for incoherent word salad for 2013 still remains Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s speech of April 30, 2013 to the American Educational Research Association [AERA].
Among other points, he chastises some of his fiercest critics [re misuse, overuse, and outright abusive use of standardized tests] for not getting high-stakes standardized testing right. Plus he is firmly and steadfastly for, against and somewhat for/somewhat against high-stakes standardized testing.
Rheeally!
Link: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/choosing-right-battles-remarks-and-conversation
I do not write the above lightly. It is painful to see the AFT shooting itself in the foot. For example, I am not being facetious or sarcastic when I write that Ms. Weingarten should thank you for pointing out the obvious flaws in the purported 75% poll support for CCSS. Good examples are set when deeds are matched by words—simple assertions of such are not enough. One way she could do that would be to draw on the experience, talents and expertise of her own union members [like yourself] to design, produce and carry out a transparently rigorous, extensive and trustworthy poll of a truly representative sample of the AFT membership on key issues like CCSS.
Just my dos centavitos worth…
Thank you for all your efforts.
🙂
LikeLike
The CC$$
Because no one gives a $@&*$@&*&* what you think. You want to play, you do it our way.
This has been a public service announcement of the Common Core Curriculum Commissariat Ministry of Propaganda, formerly known as the AFT and NEA.
LikeLike
Another thank you Mercedes, for the excellent, probing questions to Randi. I too think we have a right to know about the relationship between our Union and the builders/promoters/corporate sponsors of the CCSS so we can get a better perspective on why they are so strongly behind this document. We also have a right to know what was done by the Union with the money (with lots of strings, I am sure) given to us by Gates. In addition, the Union has a responsibility to educators in offering solid evidence of why the CCSS is good for our students, public schools, and country other than repeating the mantra that higher standards will lead to more critically thinking, 21st century, students. Really? Says who and on what basis can anyone say that? These have never been field tested on anyone, anywhere.
A couple of quick anecdotes about our Union and its relationship to corporate entities. Last year, Randi came to visit our state which had been reeling from the first year of receiving letter grades from a new law enacted by our Governor, our newspapers were demonizing teachers and “failing schools”, and we had just been acknowledged as having the second poorest children in the country (Mississippi was first, but we beat them this year). I went to the talk that Randi gave at our local Union office. She very briefly discussed our volatile situation, but stressed that her talk would focus on Union solutions—-not dwell on things that were out of our control, therefore, she wanted to talk to us about……SHARE MY LESSON!!! I couldn’t believe it. Before the talk, I checked out the Share My Lesson site and it was pretty dismal…..you should take a look at it and let me know what you think. I would be highly interested in knowing how much use that site is getting from teachers in our current climate of fear, frustration, and anger.
Secondly, we are on a new evaluation system that is 50% based on student test scores/school grades. The other half is based on 3 principal observations that are scored based on a voluminous Danielson-like rubric. The whole evaluation process is facilitated by Teachscape. Here is a brief summary of Teachscape’s evaluation system:
Teachscape Reflect is a complete observation and evaluation management system that helps districts make the critical connection between evaluations and long-term practice improvement.
With a technology-enabled process and graphic-rich reports, Teachscape Reflect enables districts to deliver actionable feedback and support teachers to reflect and build on their skills.
All parts of our evaluation are uploaded into this system….lesson plans, the principal’s observation notes, scores on our observations, pre/post observation questions….the whole deal. Our very large district is in an uproar over this evaluation system, but I was particularly upset when I discovered the close relationship between Teachscape and AFT. Here is the Teachscape timeline on their corporate brochure. By the way, our very poor state purchased this system for over 2 million dollars.
1999
Teachscape founded
2000
American Federation of
Teachers and Teachscape
develop New Teacher
Support Series
2001
Carnegie Corporation selects
Teachscape and Stanford to
develop English language
learning resources for teachers
2001
Teachscape selected as sole
online professional learning
provider for State of California
2001
Early childhood development
courses co-created with
Children’s Learning Institute
at UT at Houston
2002
U.S. Department of Education selects
Concord Consortium and Teachscape
to co-develop online mathematics
professional development resources
2003
Western Governors University selects
Teachscape’s online learning system
2004
Teachscape launches the industry’s
first classroom walkthrough software,
implemented statewide in Florida
and Arkansas
2006
Teachscape partners with McREL
to develop online professional
development modules
2008
State of Washington selects
Teachscape to provide
comprehensive support to
underperforming districts
2009
Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation selects
Teachscape for Measures of
Effective Teaching project
2010
Teachscape selected by Detroit
Public Schools as primary school
turnaround partner
2010
Teachscape launches Teachscape
Reflect, first 360-degree video
classroom observation system
2011
Teachscape partners with ETS and
Charlotte Danielson to develop first
online proficiency test for classroom
observers
Sorry to go on, but I felt the above information was worth mentioning.
LikeLike
As a proud member of both AFT and NEA I am sad to read many of these comments that take a fair debate and make personal attacks because of disagreement. It also saddens me that some have chosen to take an “in house” discussion outside the union so that it can be used by those who truly want to tear down our only voice our union! With that said both NEA and AFT had survey members and found similar results, most of our members support the idea of common core stands. Both NEA and AFT have heard from members that the implementation, the high stakes testing and constant demoralization of our profession must be stopped. I support common core and many of the teachers I work with daily do as well. Do we think improvement can and should be made? Absolutely! Do we believe the implementation has been poorly done? You bet! Do we feel the high stakes environment is hurting our students and our profession? Definitely! But much of what I see here and hear around our profession started long before the adoption of Common Core.
As for those who oppose our profession and our union. I am not a Bill Gates fan or a Gates foundation fan. I am an educator, and as such, I believe we educate those who do not know better. Gates has been wrong on a lot of things, but he has also started in some aspects to change his tune. He recently wrote an opinion piece in which he said schools are testing too much. He also said that reforms take time. These small admissions are huge steps for someone who started by claiming quick fixes and testing for accountability. The Gates foundation has come out in support of full training credentialing evaluators, which in my 19 years in education has never been done. I think this has a lot to do with many of us speak up and educating those who do not know about the challenges we face. We should never duck our head in the sand and avoid those who disagree with us. We should always challenge their thinking and, for that matter, our own thinking. I don’t just believe we should say we are lifelong learning, I believe we have to live it, teach it and demonstrate it.
I am part of the union movement because I believe in the power of us! I believe we have a responsibility to speak out against things that are bad for our students and our profession. President Weingarten has done that, by calling for an end to high stakes testing, by speaking against closing schools, but being there at various events and even getting arrested to show that our union stands up for the students and those who work in our schools. But we also have a responsibility to lead. President Weingarten has done that as well. We need our students to achieve at the highest level. We need to support great teaching and learning. President Weingarten has but AFT squarely in the debate and given us the voice we need. Her efforts show that we, as a union, support great teaching and great learning. I am proud of her work and proud to be part of such an awesome union – a union that allows varying points of view, but let’s not stoop to the level of Congress. Let’s have a conversation about issue and let’s do it in house. Fight like hell for what you believe, but don’t give those who want to end our union so we have no voice to protect our students, our schools and our profession something to hit us with.
LikeLike
NEA and AFT sure did find similar results. Both surveys indicated that most teachers are on the fence about Common Core:
LikeLike
Thank you. I see your point of view, but do not agree with your conclusions. Polls/surveys always group positive responses. I think it is fair to say that a very large percentage of members believe in common core. Yes many have reservations/concerns with it, but that is true in just about any change. I do not believe what AFT or NEA are saying in incorrect. I do believe most members support the basis for common core, but oppose the high stakes nature we find our schools in. I think we need to tackle the real issue – high stakes, as President Weingarten and AFT have done. You are entitled to your view point, just as others are entitled to their. Your blogs make it clear what your viewpoint is. I think the majority of us in AFT and NEA do not share the exact same view as you have.
LikeLike
Here you go. Be sure to examine slide 3:
LikeLike
Then, there’s always Bill:
LikeLike
Ms. Schnider has refused to post my comments on her Blog and redirected me here. So I am posting what I wrote last night.
I am the AFT President of Utah. I don’t know how familiar Ms. Schnider is with our state and its politics. Utah is a Right to Work State. Our education system is the lowest funded per pupil state in the union. Organizing the union in Utah is a huge challenge because of the opposition to Unions by the predominate political party. When our members join AFT, they are dedicated and fierce in their defense of our public schools and their students. There is a huge debate being waged in Utah concerning the CCSS. In Utah, the majority of teachers that belong to AFT and NEA support the Common Core. It’s necessary for us to defend it. Opposition to the Common Core is used by many Republican Legislators who seek to privatize public education. There are ultra conservative organizations such as the Utah Eagle Forum, The Sutherland Institute, and businessmen who capitalize by serving on the Board of Directors for many Charter Schools. They tout the evilness of the Common Core to attack the effectiveness of our public schools. I served on a panel last week as part of a Town Hall for Reclaiming the Promise of Public Education. By my side was Utah State Superintendent of Public Schools. We received questions about the Common Core and how the State Office of Education supports teachers and students. Superintendent Menlove was able to share with parents and community members how Utah had prepared in advance to meet the standards by hosting in-services, teacher academies, and forming assessment writing committees over the past three years. Several of our members helped to create the assessments being used this year across the state. These teachers have shared with me that the tests are valid and well written. The State Superintendent was with these groups every step of the way. He is concerned for our teachers and recognizes their hard work and dedication. He also understands the attacks from those who oppose our public schools and stands with us in solidarity and support.
Do we teachers in Utah believe the Common Core is the answer to all our educational woes? Of course not. We know that there are flaws in the system and they need to be improved. Teachers are working on innovative curriculum to meet these standards. Bottom line is the Common Core has been adopted by our State and if we abandon it, we are left wide open to the opposition that looks for any excuse to privatize our public school system. So we fight the opposition. We use resources such as Share My Lesson with superintendents, principals, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents. We sponsor Reclaiming the Promise Town Hall Meetings to rally support of our public schools. We use all the resources AFT offers to get the message out and organize. It’s not a choice here in Utah, it’s survival.
I personally don’t know Randi’s history. To be honest, I don’t care or have time to review her life and where AFT gets its money. I’m too busy defending my teachers from unfair labor practices and attacks by legislators bent on destroying our school system. I met Randi for my first time at the TEACH Conference this past July. I had been a State Fed President for just three months. She took the time to speak with me personally and ask how things were going. She inquired about what I needed for Utah. I told her. She embraced me, told me to keep up the fight, and then she went on stage and delivered a powerful closing speech. Randi and AFT Staff have followed through with support ever since that day. I look forward to meeting with Randi in Virginia next week at a conference and sharing our successes. Utah AFT stands in Solidarity with our National President.
LikeLike
“I personally don’t know Randi’s history. To be honest, I don’t care or have time to review her life and where AFT gets its money.”
Wow.
And this is coming from state-level AFT leadership.
LikeLike
I want to thank the many commenters who have been so willing to write on my behalf on the comments section of this post. It is a surreal experience being on the wrong side of those who are well financed and well connected.
Thank you for fairly weighing my words.
I want to also thank Diane for her willingness to post my work– even my controversial pieces that inadvertently place her in the middle. I know that both posts– my open letter piece and this subsequent spinoff Leo Casey piece– have certainly placed Diane in an awkward spot.
Diane, I appreciate you.
LikeLike
And I really appreciate you!
Thank you for all the heavy lifting you do on behalf of us and our students.
Of course I appreciate Diane, too 😉
LikeLike
My comments are, as an educator of about twenty-eight years (but an older-generation one–I’ll be 65 next week). There should be no moratorium on the Common Core. The efforts of the President and others are well-intended. The major problem is that too many decisions and educational designs are being created by noneducators OR educators who are not currently teaching and “in the trenches.” Common Core is an excellent advanced college-bound curriculum, but everyone is not college-bound. If so, who will weld? Who will drive the big rigs? Who will do the plumbing? Let’s be practical. Track education is the route we should take. Another point: This high-level type (CC) of education is good, but it is being implemented at the expense of the basics (which are an absolute necessity!) Those who want to go to college should. Those who do not have no business being there. Also, let’s stop personal attacks on people’s teaching credentials, etc. We are all in this together–to properly educate our youth. I say send CURRENT teachers to Washington and Baton Rouge, La., to work on the Common Core and get it started at a kindergarten level and move up the grades, INCLUDING strong basics at the right times but also provide for those who will not be college graduates–and thank God for them!
LikeLike
Yesterday’s closed legislative meeting in Baton Rouge on Common Core is a more realistic picture of where Louisiana is with those “excellent” manufactured “standards”:
http://louisianaeducator.blogspot.com/2013/11/white-gets-earful.html
LikeLike
An Open Letter to Randi Weingarten:
I am a member of the rank and file of the American Federation of Teachers. I was a founding member of our local. I am the AFT. I am the boots on the ground. I am not trying to climb up the sordid ladder of victory on the backs of teachers like so many politicians. I am in the streets, spending hours trying to jump through the Common Core maze. I am the teacher who hasn’t seen a raise in years because state funding, once promised, is being held up in the courts. I am the teacher attending umpteenth in-service sessions to learn how to teach, throwing my 29 years of experience by the wayside. I am the teacher who hears hallway chatter about so and so getting a 4 and I only got a 3.5. Yes, Randi, it has come to this. And you aren’t helping.
I have just read your response to my fellow teacher, Mercedes Schneider, as well as the comments to your response. I am totally disgusted at the self-serving tone. Prolixity doesn’t mask your efforts to steer the argument away from the important issues Schneider raised. Why didn’t you just answer the questions in a succinct manner instead of spending so much time defending your honor? You may not have intended this but intent and perception often are at odds.
I am not as polite as Dr. Schneider so I will put my questions in simple terms. Again, this is the perception of your leadership within my union:
1. Honesty is important. Credentials are important. Veteran teachers are very sensitive to those who pretend to be educators. Why have you tried to hide your limited full time teaching experience? It’s the cover-up that gets you in trouble.
2. Follow the money. Why not admit that accepting Gates funds was not in the best interest of AFT Rank and file? Funds that go to supporting the “reform” efforts of corrupt politicians are not in my best interest, especially when I see local funds and my time redirected to Charter Schools and Common Core implementation, including instructional time being devoted to workshops and testing,
3. Statistical manipulation is suspect. Statistics are the politician’s best friend. They can be twisted to support any end. Why have you continued to report that a majority of teachers endorse Common Core? It just is not true.
You represent me; you represent the rank and file. Please do not continue to demean and misrepresent those of us who see the scam perpetrated on teachers in the name of reform. We need leadership who will carry on a true conversation with our membership, and not react to an honest inquiry of one of your members in the manner that you did with Dr. Schneider.
LikeLike
I have read the two posts and comments on this issue. What I see is a very small number of people — Norm Scott, Michael Fiorillo, Robert Rendo, Krazy TA — obsessively commenting again and again, with personal attack after personal attack on Randi and on anyone who disagrees with them. Mercedes thanks everyone who agrees with her, and insults and dismisses everyone who disagrees with her as “a commercial.” The pattern suggests that the attacks on Randi are only one part of a small group of obsessive, bitter people who don’t know how to disagree without being disagreeable.
LikeLike
HT, if I really wanted to “dismiss” you, I certainly would not have redirected pro-Weingarten commenters to a much more popular blog.
LikeLike
What personal attacks?
Disagrement, requests for clarification, requests for information…these are not personal attacks.
LikeLike
History Teacher…count me among the “small group of obsessive, bitter people who are fighting for our profession.
LikeLike
Diane Ravitch, who is my candidate for our leading public intellectual AND the moral conscience of our nation, has an extraordinarily incisive mind. She has a way of cutting to the point, and she did this recently in a comment that she made about the Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic]. She asked, “What happened to democracy in all this?”
And the answer, of course, is that democratic processes were entirely obviated. And even worse, as a result of that, there will be no democratic process in the future with regard to conceptualization of the basic framework for instruction in the English language arts. Those decisions have been made for everyone else.The amateurish CC$$ in ELA preclude much of what we should be doing in the various domains that they cover. They are extraordinarily backward. And in any system worthy of a free country, they would compete against alternative models for adherents, for acceptance by a free people, empowered to accept, reject, adopt, or adapt them to the extent that they see fit based upon their own evolving practice.
LikeLike
The Common Core is a business plan. As Arne Duncan’s Chief of Staff said, “The purpose of the new standards is to create national markets for products that can be brought to scale.” As Bill Gates puts it, two consortia have now been established “to create just these kinds of tests—next-generation assessments aligned to the common core. When the tests are aligned to the common standards, the curriculum will line up as well—and that will unleash powerful market forces in the service of better teaching.” These are not my words. They are the words of Duncan’s office and of Bill Gates
If you like the idea of the Microsofting and Walmarting of U.S. education, then you are going to love the CC$$. They will ensure the development of standardized pedagogy and standardized curricula delivered through a few portals by a tiny group of very large vendors, including inBloom and Amplify, Pearson, and Scholastic. Bill has made an investment in a necessary first step in a strategic business plan. Uniformity of specification is what the large provider needs in order to shut out any nascent competition from small companies with innovative teaching methods and materials.
Supporters of the Common Core LOVE to point out that “standards are not pedagogy and curricula.” But read what Gates had to say carefully. Standards drive the tests, which in turn drive curricula. One ring to rule them all.
We are witnessing the creation of a national Common Core Curriculum Commissariat and Ministry of Truth with Gates and Murdoch’s inBloom as the gateway through which the new computer-adaptive national curricula are to pass. And guess who will collect a toll when the nationalized, standardized, uniform curricula pass through that gateway?
The CC$$ is being sold as a way to improve quality and encourage deeper thinking on the part of students. The reality is something else entirely. Flash forward a few years to a time of uniform standards, uniform tests, and uniform curricula and pedagogy to match those. Students and teachers will have the freedom to think whatever they are told to think. And that’s the result that is being enabled by the CC$$ propagandists.
LikeLike
District UFT rep offers this “let’s be friends” post:
LikeLike
What is this world coming to? Don’t we have enough going wrong with our educational system? Randi is one of us, so stop it!!!!!!! She started out as a teacher so she definitely feel our pain and especially know of our struggles. The purpose of the CCC was to have a universal curriculum so that all states will somehow meet the same objectives and all will be on the same educational level. You can’t please all the people all the time, but at least it is a start somewhere in the middle to meet goals/objectives on a “common” ground
LikeLike