Ray Salazar, a teacher in Chicago, wrote a blog post asking me to respond to four questions. I will try to do that here. I am not sure I will accurately characterize his questions, so be sure to read his post before you read my responses.
Before I start, let me say that he obviously hasn’t read my book Reign of Error. Consequently, he relies on a five-minute interview on the Jon Stewart show and a 30-minute interview on NPR’s Morning Edition to characterize my views. Surely, he knows that sound bites–which is what you hear on radio and television–are not a full representation of one’s life work or message. I am very disappointed that he did not read my book, because if he had, he would have been able to answer the questions he posed to me, and he might have asked different questions, or at least been better informed about my views and the evidence for them.
First, he objects to my statement that poverty is the most important predictor of poor academic performance, even though it is empirically accurate. He claims I am making excuses for poor teaching and that I am saying that we can’t fix schools until we eliminate poverty. But in my book, I make clear that we must both reduce poverty and improve schools, not choose one over the other. He says that teachers can’t reduce poverty, can’t reduce class size, can’t control who takes arts classes, and have no control over external circumstances. This is true, but he doesn’t seem to recognize that my book was not written as a teachers’ guide, but as a guide to national and state policy. Policymakers do control class size; do control resources; do make decisions that either lift children and families out of poverty, or shrug and say “let the schools do it.” There is no nation in the world where school reform has ended poverty, nor will school reform end it here. Salazar does not seem to understand that I am trying to open the minds of Congressmen, Senators, Cabinet officials, Governors, and State Legislatures, that I want them to take action to improve the lives of children and families; I want them to understand that they should not be cutting the jobs of librarians and nurses and increasing class sizes, and they should not be tying teachers’ compensation to test scores. I agree with Salazar that teachers make a huge difference in the lives of children, but I want him to acknowledge that the deck is stacked against poor children. It is stacked by circumstances, and it is stacked by our schools’ obsessive reliance on standardized tests. Standardized tests are normed on a bell curve. Bell curves do not produce equality of educational opportunity. They favor the advantaged over the disadvantaged. We as a society have an obligation to do something about it. He would understand all this far better if he read my book instead of listening to a TV show and a radio program.
His second point accuses me of opposing standards because I do not support the Common Core standards. That is ridiculous. I support standards, but I don’t support the federal imposition of standards that were written mostly by non-educators, that were adopted because of a federal inducement of billions of dollars, that have never been tested anywhere, and that–as the tests aligned to them are rolled out–cause the scores of students with the highest needs to collapse. In New York, for example, 3% of English learners passed the Common Core tests, along with 5% of students with disabilities, and less than 20% of African American and Hispanic students. The two major testing consortia funded by the U.S. Department of Education selected NAEP proficient as the cut score (passing mark) for their tests; that is an unwarranted decision, because NAEP proficient was never intended to be a passing mark for state tests. It represents “solid academic achievement,” not “passing.” Only in one state–Massachusettts–have as many as 50% of students reached the 50% mark on NAEP proficient. Thus, the testing consortia will either be compelled to drop the cut score (and claim progress and victory) or more than 50% of students in the U.S. (and far more in urban districts like Chicago) will never earn a high school diploma. Of course, I want to see students in Chicago and every other urban district reach high levels of performance, but that won’t happen until politicians stop cutting the school budget, stop laying off teachers, ensure that every school has the resources it needs for the students it enrolls, stop using test scores for high-stakes for students, teachers and schools, and make sure that all children have food security, access to medical care, and the basic necessities of life. Salazar seems to suggest that poverty doesn’t matter all that much, as long as teachers are creating a “college-going” culture. In effect, he is shifting blame to teachers for failing to create such a culture; but no school can create such a culture without the tools and resources and staff to do it.
Third, Salazar criticizes my concern that school choice is intended to create a marketplace of charters, leading to a dual school system. He wants more school choice. I don’t think school choice answers the fundamental challenge to school leaders: how can they create good public schools in every neighborhood? That is their duty and their obligation. Salazar says that good neighborhood schools don’t exist now, and I agree. But choice won’t bring the change we need. It will create a competition for a few good placements, but it wont create more good schools. Choice does not improve neighborhood schools. it abandons them. We will never have good neighborhood schools if we create a system where all kids are on school buses in search of a better school. In some cities, it is the schools that do the choosing, not the students or their families. Many of those “schools of choice” don’t want the kids who will pull down their all-important scores. So, what should happen right now? The mayors of big cities who want to be education leaders should make sure that every school has the resources it needs: the teachers, librarians, social workers, nurses, after-school programs, summer programs, small classes, arts classes, physical education, foreign languages, etc. In a choice system, it is left to students to find a school that will accept them and hope it is better than the one in their neighborhood. I say that students, parents, educators, and communities must demand that the politicians invest in improving every school. As Pasi Sahlberg, the great Finnish expert, has said about his nation’s schools, “we aimed for equity, and we got excellence.” As for Ray’s crack about my “choices,” I attended neighborhood schools: Montrose Elementary School; Sutton Elementary School; Albert Sidney Johnston Jr. High School; and San Jacinto High School. Were they the best schools in Houston? I have no idea. They were good neighborhood schools.
In his fourth point, Salazar repeats his belief that there is both a poverty crisis and an educational crisis. I agree. If he read my book, he would know that. The poverty crisis created the educational crisis. If we ignore the poverty crisis, we will never solve the educational crisis.
In California over the decades, it feels like the management of public education has gradually eased out of the hands of local school boards. Sure, there’s a lot that they can still do, but increasingly standards and mandates are dictated from the state and federal levels, and increasingly I hear local administrators say, “our hands are tied on this.” Originally there was a good reason for state oversight — to smooth out stark inequalities of funding from district to district — but it has also conveniently homogenized the education market statewide and nationwide for the benefit of other interests, and not necessarily in the interest of local values. At least with NCLB (as bad as it was) states could call the shots on standards; with Common Core, though… I like to believe in the concept of a person making a difference locally with a school board and a school district, but it looks like this is turning into a behemoth of a monster.
a California parent
Historically speaking, maybe. But as for the current moment, I disagree. With recent passage of the Local Control Funding Formula (Prop 30), parents and community members should be running to serve on Parent Advisory Councils. RUN, DO NOT WALK. Ask your district office for their copy of the Local Control Accountability Plan, then find out what you must do to participate.
In California, school districts must now release interim budgets for community discussion and review in order to ensure that low-income, English language learner, foster children, and special ed children are indeed receiving the dedicated funds set aside for them as required under Prop 30. Our schools across the state will also be receiving more than the Great Recession levels of 2008-2009 funding for general population students. This means vetting the district’s budget and approving it *prior* to June 2014.
This also means that parents must pay attention to the California state budget cycle, which starts with the Governor announcing his January projection of revenue and expenses, the May revise (after state taxes have been collected), and final budget passage by the state legislature before June 30, 2014.
In my child’s school district, I will be meeting with other members of the LCAP/PAC in mid-January to begin gathering community input and ensure that groups of children who are more expensive to educate are receiving the funds, the teachers, and the programs they need to flourish.
Ms. Liu,
Thanks for the tip, re: LCAP. I really need to read more about LCFF, but my initial reaction to what I understood from an early school board meeting on the topic was that the money could be spent however the district wanted, but with heavy regulation that seemed to undermine a genuine sense of choice and local control in the matter.
Salazar’s objective was for his students to learn how to argue. I have a feeling that his students did not have both sides to make a solid argument. He needs to send his students’ papers for us to judge if they could substantiate their arguments based on both sides.
He has a personal agenda here. He claims we use poverty as an excuse. He claims teachers can help kids out of poverty. “We do what we can to create safe, comfortable classrooms and schools where students can—even if it’s only for one 50-minute period—feel valued and be academically prepared for a better life.” He uses his family as an example of escaping poverty.
Yes, there are a few who can beat poverty with the help of teacher role models. As teachers, we have been doing that for years, but it hasn’t put poverty to a screeching halt. It doesn’t sound like he knows what poverty is for sure. Wonder how many students/families he helped beat poverty. He must be a superhero.
Can he explain what a good academic program for the “…gang-infested high school in Chicago’s 26th Street neighborhood with a horrible academic program,” would look like? Would he dare say, they would need more teacher like him to fix the problem.
As for school choice, I don’t think that would work. Why not just build government subsidized apartment/homes in a wealthy neighborhood?
“He uses his family as an example of escaping poverty.”
Was his family really in poverty (e.g.., he didn’t know where his next meal was coming from, he was homeless, he lived in fear of violence in his home and/or neighborhood, he had one or more incarcerated close family members, etc.), or was it Joel Klein kind of “poverty”? I’m tired of people claiming poverty just because they didn’t get to take a vacation every year or they had to wear hand-me-down clothes or something.
I think he wants attention. I hope he shows his students our responses. I had a discussion w my 5th gr on being poor. They know better than how he describes it..
Jon, I have described it and lived it. Read some pieces on my blog and you’ll see what I mean, perhaps.
I love this! It was like a mini-review of your book… Thanks!
Yes it was! I’m forwarding to the editors of the Albany Times Union. Each week they print some disjointed poorly organized editorial in support of the CC. Coincidentally, they then print logical commentary by their own reporters or others (Burris, Farley) detailing the reality of national reform.
You are so on point about their coverage….but at least they are printing some rebuttal to the crap coverage….but why they print it at all is a mystery.
Salazar sounds like a future administrator for a corporate-funded charter school. I say “Don’t make excuses, go for it!”
With all due regard—and I am not being dismissive or snarky—whatever happened to taking time and expending energy in order to be thoughtful? Especially if one wants to set a good example for young people about how mature and responsible people respond to the POVs of others?
IMHO, Ray Salazar could and should have read REIGN OF ERROR first. We have been living in the era of misleading sound bites for a long time. If his picture on his blog is any indication, he is old enough to know better. And the book is not impossibly long, or complicated, or overly difficult to read and understand.
I do not fault him for raising his points but we should model good habits if we want to demonstrate what a civil and democratic discussion looks like in practice. Agree or disagree with Diane Ravitch, read her book first before you decide what she thinks.
Lastly, so many times—including just last week—when I am in a dialogue with HS students, I mention that old standby “give respect to get respect” to indicate that all sides of a discussion or dispute, regardless or age or background etc., should [as much as possible] be treated with consideration and care.
I understand others may find the above unacceptable. So be it.
And it does not go without saying that the owner of this blog deserves thanks for going the extra mile to communicate. She certainly has more patience than I do.
Just my dos centavitos worth.
😎
Krazy TA, I understand your sentiment, I’m just struck with the idea that we (as teachers) have been very respectful all along.
We were respectful when A Nation at Risk, told everyone that the standardized test indicated learning.
We were respectful when our principals moved another 10 students into our room (because we were such good teachers we could handle it).
We were respectful when called “not highly qualified”
We were respectful when called “Lazy.”
We were respectful when we were told that we need to replaced (with better, and younger teachers).
We were respectful when our colleagues in schools from wealthier neighborhoods condescended to us at the district meetings.
We were respectful when people that were not qualified (either in character or ability) were promoted to principal because they spouted the ignorant pabulum of corporate reform.
We were respectful when we subtly (or not so subtly) bullied our students into a belief about their quality as learners, and people, based on their test scores.
We were respectful when we were evaluated based on test scores.
We were respectful when we had to explain to parents that the tests we forced their children to take (and failed) were not indicative of their quality as learners or people.
We were respectful to the parents who accused us of failing their children when our students did not pass the test that had been sold to them as an indicator of teacher quality.
Clearly I/we could go on… It just seems to me that our current demeanor in the national discourse is a bit feeble. I think we need some outrage. I think we need to demand more from the people who are going to offer their opinion, I think we need to demand more from ourselves in the conversation. Metaphorically we are all in an lit. class together and occasionally someone (like Mr. Salazar) shows up in the class having not read the chapters and then demands we dumb it down for them. We should be pissed that they didn’t do their homework.
Brilliant response, James Clark!
Time to stop deferring to people who judge you without knowing how to do your job. Time to speak out, as long as you can do so without getting fired. Join BATs. Join the Network for Public Education. Join with allies. There is strength in numbers.
Yes, and… not to put too heavy a feminist stripe on it, but when a man preaches to a female member of his professional field to ‘keep the discourse respectful’, for me, a whole lotta chauvinism creeps in & reduces his credibility to zilch.
James Clark: good points. And your last paragraph is especially telling.
All of us should demand more of others—and ourselves. We do the latter action to give credence to the former. It’s called “leading by example.” Mr. Salazar references both Diane Ravitch and Michelle Rhee in his online piece.
Diane Ravitch was and remains eager and willing to engage in open democratic discussion and debate with all comers. This is evidenced by her attempts to set up public dialogues with [literally] stars in the education establishment like Michelle Rhee and David Coleman. Yet in both cases timid acceptance was followed by stern cancellation. Apparently the “no excuses” crowd prefers talking to itself than with anyone outside of their ideological echo chamber. *I cannot fail to mention that on a number of occasions she has been on MSM panels where she was outnumbered two, three or four to one by “education reformers” with the moderators of said panels making sure that she was drowned out by her critics and detractors. Yet she remained civil, on topic and respectful.*
So Mr. Salazar models a good example of engaging in courteous and crucial dialogue by forcing a discussion from—the first? Huh?
And I sincerely hope that the comment by Chi-town below (“Funny Salazar disabled comments on his website, so I could not mention any of this there.”) is incorrect.
Notwithstanding any of the above, and keeping in mind the ‘Rules of the Road’ of the owner of this blog and that this is the time of year of “goodwill to all,” I will err on the side of the angels in this one and assume, or at least hope, that Mr. Salazar simply made a mistake in judgment. We all do. I know I have.
Serious people take their own words and actions seriously. When you don’t live up to your own words, you apologize. I have had to. So not for the sake of the owner of this blog—she’s perfectly capable of explaining her views and defending herself—but for your own sake, and to model the kind of behavior we all respect and admire—
Come on this blog and apologize. Not grovel. This isn’t that kind of blog. And then join in a genuine, wide-ranging and open discussion.
“Diane Ravitch’s Blog A site to discuss better education for all” is a big tent. There’s room for you too.
I hope to see you here.
😎
The control argument has always seemed particularly weak to me. Surely we
should have influence and our communication skills can help inform public debate.
KrazyTA, please read my dos centavitos to the response “read the book” at the bottom. Gracias.
Thanks for your blog I have just discovered two months ago.
Here in Spain we are having lot of troubles in schools and as teachers, due to the policy of our new governants whose only aim is to reach higher figures in school results without paying any attention to the needs of our students or the increasing difficulties of budgets. During the last year, they have been cutting our budgets and criminalised teachers, they have only paid attention to PISA results, but not in order to solve real problems. So reading your posts makes me see we are not mistaken, and our fight for a public and democratic school is legitimate.
I will try to get your book Reign of Error and learn of your experience.
Diane,
When Salazar or others lead you into a discussion of poverty and causation or correlation I believe they have already won. Don’t let them control the debate like that! Use their argument on them, because they are the ones making excuses. They are excuse makers for an inequitable economic system. They are excuse makers for an economy that has produced a child poverty rate of what, 24%. Their obsessive focus on education is by design. It takes focus off the fact that children are growing up in neighborhoods without jobs, that the minimum wage is not even related to what people need to get by, that too many of these children know one or more persons in prison, that banks have transferred wealth out of their neighborhoods into the hands of the investor class. I would tell them that you care too much about children to leave their well being up to how they do in school.
If we buy into their argument that education is the path out of poverty we end up with crappy schools focused on what the market needs. There has been no coordinated school reform effort in higher education but we’re at a similar place there– dumbed down curricula, treating the student as a consumer, and an emphasis on money making ventures. This is one reason that I was playing the world’s smallest violins for college administrators who have protested the Obama administration’s silly ratings scheme. They have been only too happy to watch the price of college far outstrip inflation and just keep reminding the public that that is the price that must be paid to remain viable in the job market. They tell you you might as well take up residence under a bridge if you don’t get a post secondary degree. Is this ratings system not the end result of such exhortations?
Yes! Blaming teachers for the poor school performance of the poor is absolutely simply making excuses for inequitable school funding and the inequities in our economy.
Ann B., you may be right. I was tempted to ignore Salazar. I am waiting to see if he takes issue with Rhee or Duncan. But I thought it was useful to take on his argument and refute it. Poverty is not an excuse; it is a reality. Perhaps he did not realize he was echoing the sentiments of Rhee, Duncan, Gates, Klein, etc.
Diane, I have taken issue with Duncan. I my post about how too many white voices are leading the conversation. That’s the one you responded to with a tweet, “I’m white. So what?” And what do you expect me to say about Rhee? She’s wrong and unfit to be in education.
Mr. Salazar,
You probably should write a piece demonstrating how Rhee is “wrong” and why she should get out of education (not sure if you are serious about that).
Much of what you wrote runs parallel with Rhee so it would be interesting to see how you see difference.
Now that I read what he had to say about poverty, I can see why you felt the need to refute it.Also, I don’t believe I’ve ever read here that you advocate that teachers sit aside until we fix poverty.
Maybe us readers need to keep a record of all the excuses proffered by charter operators that we find in our local media and offer them up for a continuously updated blog post. Might take up too much space though.
Salazar’s reference to the area around 26th St is significant because that’s where the courthouse and jail are, and the latter is a very ominous, sprawling monstrosity with those coils of shiny razor wire atop. Having worked at a gang ridden public school about a block away from there myself, I understand his concerns. However, I worked with 8th graders and spent a lot of time discussing high school options with them, so I know very well that students are not restricted to only attending a zoned neighborhood high school. You would not know this from what Salazar wrote.
In fact, within the Chicago Public School system, we have many high school options, including CTE – College and Career Academies, IB High Schools, Magnet High Schools and Programs, Military Academies, and Selective Enrollment High Schools. Neighborhood schools are far from being the only choice for students, so and charters are not necessary. Funny Salazar disabled comments on his website, so I could not mention any of this there.
I didn’t disable comments, Chi-Town Res. You can log in with your Facebook account.
I don’t see that option and I don’t see any comments to that post, while I have seen comments to your other posts at that site. I don’t do Facebook and a lot of other teachers don’t, too, because we could lose our jobs for expressing our opinions. That’s why many of us don’t use our real names here as well.
I agree that choice is a good thing, but I believe if we are doing public school right, we can have choice and reach all our students and families and meet their needs within our public school systems. Those things that are not meant to be covered by public schools (religious education for example) can be met by private schools.
How is someone who teaches argumentative writing allowing himself to publish a piece of argumentative writing without having read all the literature first? It’s like Monty Python’s kind of “argument”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
See my response at the bottom.
What would you version of standards look / sound like, Diane? How would they be implemented?
What percentage of proceeds fom your book are going to students, teachers, and/or public schools?
Thanks!
* your version
* from your book
My tablet will not let me edit.
Teresa, my version of standards would be voluntary, written primarily by educators: teachers and subject matter experts.
Voluntary standards comfort the comforted and afflict the afflicted. You asked here once whether anyone was having a positive experience with the standards and I replied that they had made a huge difference with my school. This is because we have been able to use them to push for adoption of a MUCH better curriculum that encouraged critical thought and not just mindless hoop jumping. In fact, the Math Practice Standards (and tests that have been written to match them) finally pushed us out of the awful didactic program pushed by most large publishers. Take away the mandatory nature of CCSS and that leverage goes away. What replaces is a free state where I am free to adopt what Texas and California like because they drive the market share.
Moreover, I have taught both under standards written by teachers and standards written by outsiders and I cannot say that the former always produce better results. I am much more interestd with the quality of the standards than who wrote them. The constant focus on who wrote them often seems like an ad hominem more than anything else.
Brett, do you have standards of your own or do you just wait for someone to give you their standards? like the test publishers and DC think tanks and non-educators who wrote the CCSS?
I can’t respond to your question below because the website doesn’t allow responses threaded that far, so I am responding again up here.
First, a note: rhetorical questions make for bad argumentation. They fail to make a point, leaving it assumed instead. They also end up just sounding snotty and high handed.
Second, I do indeed have standards of my own. However, standards vary greatly from classroom to classroom. As Argued the first time, when we set voluntary standards, those who adopt the standards were already likely working well under standards of their own, whereas those most likely to benefit from uniform standards are least likely to adopt them.
You can hope that exemplary teachers will drive he system and all learning will be excellent, but what ACTUALLY happens is that most teachers shape their teaching to the standards and curriculum that they, or their district, have adopted, making slight modifications whenever possible. Our job is hard and all the incentives work against every teacher recreating curriculum on their own. Even when they do, the results are often haphazard at best.
Which is to say, I support uniform standards. It is clear that the argument that you don’t actually support standards in any meaningful sense isn’t far off the mark. And you apparently feel that shaming anyone who supports standards by suggesting that they are substandard teachers is OK.
Standards and curriculum are generally over rated. Just look at the table of contents of a math, social studies, or science textbook and you will see the state standards/curriculum in outline form. Teachers have been following this simple guideline for decades. Exceptional teachers of course go beyond the text to make course work more interesting.
NYTeacher, your example doesn’t suggest that curriculum is unimportant, but rather that you are happy to outsource standards and curriculum to textbook companies. As someone who thinks HS math textbooks are almost uniformly terrible from a pedagogical standpoint, I find your dismissive ness toward curriculum quite troubling.
Under NCLB, textbook companies advertised the fact that they were “aligned with NY state learning standards. Under CCSS, guess what they’re advertising.
I’m not dismissing the importance of curriculum, I am dismissing the notion that there is some great mystery as to what we are supposed to teach.
“Standards and curriculum are generally over rated.”
“I’m not dismissing the importance of curriculum, I am dismissing the notion that there is some great mystery as to what we are supposed to teach.”
I don’t think I believe your first claim. As to the second, if you believe standards documents, including the CCSS, are simply about content (what to teach) as opposed to how, then you either aren’t reading them very closely or don’t care much what they actually say.
Don’t discount the professionalism of teachers. It’s nonsense to think they would not seek to meet standards of their own accord, if given the choice. Back when standards were optional in my district and high-stakes testing was not associated with standards, I learned about my district’s standards in Grad School and I asked for copies of them.
I liked my district’s standards so much that I chose to implement them in my classroom at a private school, which served many low income and new immigrant children who received government subsidies (which is common in schools serving the birth through age 6 population). I found the standards to be particularly useful guides, because I was teaching a combined class of children who were at PreK, Kindergarten and 1st Grade ages, spoke many different home languages and were at varying developmental levels. (The district didn’t have standards for PreK then, but I found the standards for Primary students to be developmentally appropriate, so I readily adapted them for Pre-Primary.)
At a professional conference that I attended, I mentioned implementing the district’s standards to the large group that was in the auditorium and many teachers there said they’d never heard of the standards. Teachers came up to me after the presentation, to ask where to get a hold of the standards. There were so many teachers asking me about this that you would have thought I was one of the speakers, but I was just a private school teacher in an audience made up of primarily public school teachers. Many of these public school teachers were upset that they had to learn about their district’s standards from a private school teacher. I hooked them up and a lot of them got back to me later on and thanked me profusely, as they, too, chose to implement the standards in their classrooms.
I have been trying to get an understanding of the concept of “developmentally appropriate”, so I hope you will not mind me asking a somewhat unrelated question. If the standards in the district were developmentally appropriate for pre-primary students, wouldn’t they have to be developmentally inappropriate for primary students? It may be that I am interpreting your use of the word adopted to mean you used the standards when you meant that you changed the standards to be developmentally appropriate for younger children.
TE, the term “developmentally appropriate” has been used for many years by organizations like the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Here is their definition: http://www.naeyc.org/DAP
Obviously what is appropriate for one child may not be appropriate for another. Some few may be able to do algebraic equations at the age of 5, others may need help learning that 1+1=2. Teachers are supposed to be prepared as professionals to recognize what children are ready and able to learn and to guide them as they develop their skills and knowledge.
In discussions of the CCSS the term developmentally inappropriate is used as an absolute. I have tried to find out how this translates into percentages of students in a grade (something like 15% of students in this grade will find this too difficult, 15% in this grade will find it too easy and 70% will find it just right) but have not seen it characterized that way.
The poster used the primary standards for pre-primary students. My impression from the harsh criticisms of the CCSS is that the range of age appropriateness is rather narrow. Is that incorrect? Can the same standards be age appropriate for both primary and pre-primary students?
You misread what I wrote, TE. As I said, there were no standards then for PreK, which is Pre-primary Education; they just had standards for Primary and up, which starts with Kindergarten. To be developmentally appropriate, the standards for younger children should typically differ from the standards for older kids, because younger children are usually less experienced and not as mature cognitively, physically, socially and emotionally, so I said that I “ADAPTED” the Kg standards for PreK, not “adopted.”
Your right that I miss read it.
ECE, I have no doubt your story is 100% accurate. I have seen many situations like it. As a guiding example, it suffers from selection bias 2 times over. Once, because it is focused on the subset of teachers who attended a conference and then again because it focuses only on those who chose to follow through in attaining the standards.
Even so, I think it supports my claim strongly. If these teachers, who taught in district and attended professional conferences as a matter of course, had not not even HEARD of the standards, then the implementation was spotty, to put it mildly. This isn’t to slag on the professionalism of teachers, but rather to point out that teaching is a job with tons of pressures and optional implementation is going to mean some people don’t adopt the standards and some don’t even hear of them. Those most likely to be okay without them are going to be most likely to adopt them (such as your conference attendees) while those who most need to adopt them are least likely to do so.
Lastly, I am confused by the argument that we should make standards optional because teachers will just adopt them anyway. If we want all teachers to adopt them,then mandating them makes sense. If we think they should be optional, the suggestion seems to be that there is a reason that they are not appropriate for all. Arguing that they should be optional but everyone will adopt them anyway as professionals seems a self refuting argument for making them optional in the first place.
TE, There is no magic formula for determining the percentages of children in Pre-Primary and Primary Education classrooms who will be functioning at different levels, because kids develop at different rates, especially in early childhood. In the typical Kindergarten every fall, there is a wide range of development, with children usually functioning in the 3 to 7 year old age range. Development is also often uneven, so some children may be more advanced in some domains, such as physical development, and lag in other areas, such as cognitive development.
I have always thought there was an extremely wide range, but most of the posters here criticize the CCSS as being obviously “age inappropriate”.
Brett, One of the problems was that the standards were not called standards then. I can’t remember their first name now, but then the name was changed to “Curriculum Frameworks” before eventually being changed again and called “Standards” (They were for K-12 and they remained the same under different names). Also, the district did not widely advertise their existence until after the name change.
The public school teachers at the Conference were there because the district sent them for Professional Development, so one can assume there were those who might not have wanted to attend. Those who independently chose to adopt the standards –and there were many– told me that, just like me, they did not follow only the standards geared towards one grade, because their classrooms consisted of children who were functioning at varying levels of development.
For example, in my Kindergarten class, I recall one year when I had gifted children who functioned up to a 5th Grade Reading level and a 3rd Grade level in Math, so I followed the standards for several different grades in order to differentiate instruction. Teachers don’t have that option when it’s mandated that teachers must implement the standards for their designated grades.
TE, the Common Core (CC) standards are “obviously age-inappropriate” to experienced Early Childhood Educators because they know what can be reasonably expected of children at different developmental levels and the CC represent a pushed down curriculum, so standards which had been previously expected of 1st and 2nd graders in most districts for decades are now expected of Kindergartners. And a lot of districts have just half day Kindergarten. The ELA Kindergarten standards are only appropriate for the kids who are advanced and functioning at the upper end cognitively –which is not typically the majority of Kindergartners.
Brett, as I recall now, the original name for my district’s standards was “System-Wide Objectives.”
Teresa, if all of the money Ravitch makes on Reign of Error goes into her pockets, that is her livelihood and her business.
Having noted as much, I know that she often waives her speaking fee.
Ravitch pours enough of herself into this fight. The masses who benefit ought to be paying her– but we cannot– and she works on our behalf, anyway.
Salazar is pro-charter in Chicago. His kids attend a charter school in Chicago that is run by former TFA and other admin are former KIPP. That, to me, says it all. You simply cannot be pro-for profit charter, ESPECIALLY in Chicago, and actually care about true equality in public schools. And since he has attacked me for not having my real name on twitter, here it is: Heather Poland.
Which charter school? There are no for-profit charter schools in Chicago, because they are not permitted by state law. (And if it’s a KIPP that his kids attend, then they would implement the militaristic strategies that he said in his blog he opposes.)
Assuming it’s true that his kids attend a former TFA/KIPP-run charter school, that is actually at least somewhat refreshing to me. At least he’s putting his money (or, well, his kids anyway) where his mouth is. I’ll take that over Rahmbo Emanuel who talks a good charter school game and then puts his own kids in a school that’s exactly the opposite.
I feel the opposite, due to the likelihood of former TFA/KIPP-run charter school people using the same militaristic strategies they implement at KIPP.
Hi Heather, thanks for responding. You’re reinforcing the extremes. You’re either with us or you’re against us. REally? Our work is more complex with that.
You say, “Ray Salazar, a teacher in Chicago, wrote a blog post asking me to respond to four questions.”
I didn’t see him ask you to respond to four questions. I observed him develop four ideas where you and he agree…kind of. I don’t know where you reached the conclusion that he wished you to answer his “questions”. The only thing Mr. Salazar seemed hopeful about was that you might, in 2014, address the issues and criticisms that you introduced in 2013 through your blog and numerous articles. He hoped that you might reconsider some of your positions and include the actual voices of the people that you say you are trying to help. Seriously, it sounds like a reasonable request.
Mr. Salazar is a teacher. I’ve read a litany of posts and responses on your blog about how we should respect the opinion of teachers because they are on the front lines. They are the ones who went to school to learn to teach. They have the experience. Yet you and many of your followers worked to tear him down by punching holes in his credibility and suggesting he is just another administrator wannabe. Why? Because he doesn’t agree with all your talking points and because he hasn’t read your book (you say). So what?
Someone who is as prolific as you is a book unto yourself. Is anyone really suggesting that I must read your book to truly understand your position; especially on the items Mr. Salazar outlined? Let me get this straight. If Mr. Salazar had read your book (assuming he has not), his position regarding poverty and a teacher’s role in teaching children in poverty would change? Are you that good so that just buying your book and reading it will solve all the educational problems we face in this country and turn everyone’s opinion that does not currently completely align with yours on its head?
How about you address one of his criticisms regarding your interviews in that you leave out other information that he thinks is equally important. When you say things like “The single biggest source of low academic achievement is poverty” you totally alienate the huge swath of us out here who are not faced with the type of poverty to which you are referring yet still believe our schools are failing our children. You don’t have to live in extreme poverty to do poorly in the current educational system, but if you are wealthy your children will likely fare much better. Can you see the difference in your statement and mine?
You accuse Mr. Salazar of basing his opinions on 35 minutes of interviews, yet he says:
“Throughout her book tour for Reign of Error, and in her appearance on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show this October, Diane Ravitch stated, “The single biggest source of low academic achievement is poverty.”
Earlier this month, Diane Ravitch criticized Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel for not pushing Chicago’s largest charter-school operator, UNO, to make their financial records public.
Ravitch regularly says every family should have a good neighborhood school to send their kids to.
And if Diane Ravitch reflects on her work this past year, she’ll realize that in all of the academic articles, among all her data points, among the multitude of blog posts, the most important element that remains unapparent is the voices of the low-income families and the views of the students her ideas directly affect.”
It sounds to me as if Mr. Salazar follows you quite closely and did not, in fact, base his opinions on just 35 minutes of interview sound bites. Yes, I know that in politics, the first way to bolster your position is to undermine the credibility of the person asking the tough questions, even if it means mischaracterizing what they have actually said and casting doubt upon their integrity and intelligence. You do, however, get points for warning the reader that they should read Mr. Salazar’s article and not rely upon your characterization of it.
But let’s look at some of your “explanations” aimed at Mr. Salazar’s interpretation of your position. You state, “First, he objects to my statement that poverty is the most important predictor of poor academic performance, even though it is empirically accurate. He claims I am making excuses for poor teaching and that I am saying that we can’t fix schools until we eliminate poverty. But in my book, I make clear that we must both reduce poverty and improve schools, not choose one over the other.” But in your “sound bite” you say the biggest problem is poverty. You do realize that this is what most people will hear, don’t you? You do acknowledge that this is what many people will take away from your interview, right? You do understand that not everyone who hears the interview will buy your book? Regardless of whether Mr. Salazar has read or reads your book, this is so. It is your responsibility – not his – to get your point across if you want to help education. Or was the point only to plug your book?
You say, “Salazar does not seem to understand that I am trying to open the minds of Congressmen, Senators, Cabinet officials, Governors, and State Legislatures, that I want them to take action to improve the lives of children and families; I want them to understand that they should not be cutting the jobs of librarians and nurses and increasing class sizes, and they should not be tying teachers’ compensation to test scores.” So you wrote the book for Congressmen and Senators and State Legislatures? You do realize that other types read your book as well, right? Do you put a disclaimer in your book letting the reader know that they should read it as a politician and not as a teacher, a student, or a parent?
I could go on, but it hardly seems worthwhile. I’ve followed this blog long enough to know what the responses will be. Thank God there are teachers out there like Mr. Salazar who are willing to take some personal responsibility and initiative for reaching as many children as they can instead of wallowing in the poverty excuse. They are taking lemons and trying to make lemonade instead of just making a sour face.
I grew up in poverty also. Not the type of poverty accompanied by bullets, but the kind that is accompanied by mental illness, low income, poor living conditions, constant stress, and the possibility to believe that I would never know anything different. But I went to school in an era where I was not allowed to use that as an excuse. It was an era where poor and rich alike could read and do math and where school was a safe and secure place even if home was not. Children pick up on things, the nuances of the attitudes of the adults around them. If the adults really believe that education cannot succeed where there is poverty, many children will not be pushed to succeed. I believe that is one of the underlying themes of Mr. Salazar’s article. I happen to agree with him. I would venture a guess that many others who do not regularly visit this blog also agree with him. I hope so.
Go to the about tab in this blog to see where Ray asked for Diane’s response.
Ray Salazar
December 24, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Hi Diane, we exchanged a few tweets in 2013. I’m hoping my latest post about how you should help students in 2014 will deepen the conversation.
In it, I argue that if you truly want your policy work to make a difference in the lives of American students, you need to consider the implications of your arguments, which perpetuate practices that have long kept low-income students from succeeding. I hope you get a chance to read it and respond. http://tinyurl.com/n75yw3d
Reply
dianeravitch
December 25, 2013 at 9:41 pm
Ray,
I will write a response when I get the time–which may take a few days. I am very disappointed that you are reviewing my ideas based on my appearance on the Jon Stewart show and on an article. You give no indication that you took the time to read “Reign of Error.” Why don’t you read the book and respond to it rather than summarize decades of thinking based on a five minute TV interview?
Thanks, Janna. I see now that he posted that in the “about” tab. Nonetheless, I still believe he was asking for a response – a dialogue – regarding the complexity of the issues he highlighted and the direction of Diane’s blog moving forward rather than a point-by-point refutation of his observations. I think he wants to see the dialogue change and to become richer and more nuanced and less political. Many of us believe that focusing entirely (mostly) on poverty does everyone a disservice. No matter how much Diane writes about how our schools need to feed and clothe the children first, this is not going to happen. Not in our lifetime. Furthermore, while government might have role in making sure no child lives in poverty, I do not believe the public schools are the proper venues to administer this program other than the education itself. While I have no problem with free lunches and breakfasts in theory, I can tell you that this singles children out early on by other children, teachers, administrators and even other parents. I saw it at my daughter’s school. When you see someone receiving breakfast at school, you are more inclined to give a child a pass when they don’t perform or to just blame it on poverty.
Cindy – Diane isn’t asking *schools* to “feed and clothe the children first”. She’s asking society to do that – knock off government policy that intentionally channels money upward to the already-rich and away from the unemployed, homeless, mentally ill, hungry and otherwise poor people. Her whole point (which seems to have flown right over your head) is that schools can’t do it alone. Schools – even under the best of conditions, when teachers are allowed to do their jobs (which is decidedly not the case under NCLB/RTTT) – can only take students where they’re at and do their best to move them forward. Only when an inner city black kid or a rural kid can expect similar nutrition, safety, medical care and rich experiences and opportunities as a rich suburban kid can we expect that schools will be able to educate all children equally. If some kids start 10 yards short of the finish line, some kids start on the starting line and some kids start a mile behind the starting line, it’s insane to expect that schools can get all those kids to reach the finish line at the same time.
Exaggerating and mischaracterizing your opponent’s position does not help move the dialogue forward, Cindy.
While I agree that there needs to be more nuance to the dialogue, it first starts with us to do it.
Cindy, he posted the blog on Twitter and asked me to respond.
Thanks for your comments, Cindy. I agree that poverty is sometimes used as an excuse for low achievement and low graduation rates.
Yet we do have examples of district & charter public schools, open to all kinds of kids, that are doing a great job with youngsters from low income families.
There’s lots to learn from these places.
Cindy, Thank you for posting your ideas here.
Very upbeat story about St. Paul Open World, one of the nation’s first district public school options.
http://www.twincities.com/education/ci_24794033/behind-turnaround-at-st-pauls-open-world-learning?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com
This school has not, by itself, eliminated poverty of its students. It has helped many young people from low income backgrounds.
Improving public schools is one way to help reduce poverty. So is expanding strong age 3 – grade three programs, expanding access to health care, increasing the number of jobs, and taxing wealthiest people more to help cover costs of what’s described above.
Gee Joe, you sound surprisingly like Diane:
“Improving public schools is one way to help reduce poverty. So is expanding strong age 3 – grade three programs, expanding access to health care, increasing the number of jobs, and taxing wealthiest people …”
I never can tell with you if a school is charter or public. Open World sounds like the kind of school that would appeal to many students who have found more traditional pedagogy stifling for any one of many reasons that cross socioeconomic barriers.
Open World is a district public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. The founders and teachers had to deal with many of the criticisms of charters that often are presented here – that they were taking money from other schools, that we should focus on neighborhood schools, that having options has nothing to do with improving education, etc.
If you read some of the comments in today’s discussion, you’ll see several such comments.
This is so frustrating. The main point of “Reign of Error” (if I may be so bold) is that the criticisms of American education the reformers make are not valid and the solutions the reformers make ARE NOT WORKING!
Cindy, you are missing the main point. Too many of our children are in poverty. Poverty has a HUGE effect on kids. Test scores, which the deformers say are so low and that we are failing, correlate to income level. If there were no kids in poverty, test scores would be much higher because of that correlation.
We need to fix poverty first. We need to get RID of high stakes testing. Too many corporations are making way too much money off our kids. Let’s get back to arts in schools, teachers having autonomy, schools as community centers for the neighborhood.
Respectfully, it is you who is missing my point; which is that your point only acknowledges that there is a problem with education in low income, high crime communities. It has been my problem consistently with this blog and the comments I see. Poverty does not explain all the problems in our education system today, and even if it did, we have to have a system that overcomes this obstacle. But lest anyone misunderstands, I acknowledge that there is a correlation between low income and test scores or proficiency or whatever measuring stick employed within the United States, but even those who are not living in poverty are underperforming.
Your data? Sounds like a rather baseless claim.
Which point?
As I cannot post several links without having my comment go to mediation, I will provide a link to my blog so you can look through the “data”. The focus of this data is preparedness of high school graduates for college, but I could provide other links that point to a lack of preparedness in elementary school students to succeed in Middle School algebra.
http://onewomansdiscernment.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=1075&action=edit&message=6&postpost=v2
Cindy0803. Do me a favor. Go to your local public library. Check out a copy of “Reign of Error.” Read it and get back in touch.
Cindy: “I acknowledge that there is a correlation between low income and test scores or proficiency or whatever measuring stick employed within the United States, but even those who are not living in poverty are underperforming.”
I am glad you acknowledge that the sky is blue. As far as “those not living in poverty are underperforming” ? Underperforming compared to what? Are those in Sidwell Friends and the Lab School underperforming? And if so, why? Would they do better in KIPP?
Cindy, We’re not members of the book club. Lots ain’t gonna listen.
7th grade teacher in a Texas title 1 public school & ateacherspointofview: I share your opinions. However, in all humility I would like to add something for the viewers of this blog to consider.
As the genuine movement to ensure a “better education for all” picks up steam, the conversation is going to get messier and messier, and sometimes unbearably uncomfortable and even painful. Leaving aside the shills and trolls who derail genuine discussion [to be clear: I am not referring to anyone on this thread], those leading the charge to charterize & privatize public schools have set a tone [complete with its own terminology] that makes sincere and helpful dialogue extremely difficult. For example, how often do we all use the psychometric terms “achievement” and “performance” instead of the more accurate and comprehensive “learning” and “teaching”? Why has “joy of learning” practically dropped out of our national vocabulary about education, displaced by “inputs” and “outputs” and “effectiveness” and the like?
The water is very muddy, and it ain’t going to get clean any time soon.
So I humbly caution everyone who is genuinely in favor of a “better education for all” to fight the fight that the edubullies and edufrauds can’t win: be firm but fair, listen so you can be listened to, make your deeds match your words. And when ready to move beyond words to action: don’t agonize, organize.
I know it’s frustrating—it frustrates me!—but I think I speak for many when I say we’re “in it to win it.” And to win such a great battle, some advice from a winner might be helpful:
“With reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.” [William Lloyd Garrison]
Just a few centavitos of opinion from a most KrazyTA.
😎
Diane wrote: As for Ray’s crack about my “choices,” I attended neighborhood schools: Montrose Elementary School; Sutton Elementary School; Albert Sidney Johnston Jr. High School; and San Jacinto High School. Were they the best schools in Houston? I have no idea. They were good neighborhood schools.
What was the poverty rate at these schools? Were they integrated? What were the class sizes? In which direction did the school culture lean, toward ‘progressive’ or ‘no excuses’? Did most children come from single-parent families or from stable homes?
Yes, poverty matters, and in far too many locations, the traditional district school model is a significant part of the problem. The low-poverty, high-performing districts that you continually praise and hold up as being evidence there’s nothing wrong with public education in America are inaccessible to the poor and people of color. The non-integrated high performing district can’t exist without the non-integrated urban district where we warehouse poor minorities; they are the flip sides of the same coin.
Chapter 30 of Reign of Error recommends that we devise actionable strategies and specific goals to reduce racial segregation and poverty. I hope in 2014 this blog can dig deeper–it’s going to be uncomfortable for many–into the segregation end of this recommendation. Which wealthy, high-performing district is going to venture into completely uncharted waters and actively attempt to do something about segregation? Which district will prevail upon its citizens to reform zoning laws and build affordable housing? Which will recruit out-of-zone minorities for free K-12 scholarships? Which will form relationships with or even provide financial support to impoverished schools that are sometimes only a stone’s throw away?
Good questions, Tim. Some people I’ve encountered over the years who move to wealthy, mostly white, most affluent suburbs go there precisely because they don’t want to have their children to to school with “those kids.”
Personally, we were delighted to have our 3 children attending urban, racially and economically diverse district public schools. But I found unfortunately that many other urban public school educators did not send their children to urban public schools…and this was 10-20 years ago, well before NCLB.
I do appreciate the opportunity that Diane provides her to learn from others as well as to share.
In that spirit, here’s a link to, and newspaper column I wrote that might interest some of you – it’s just been posted and you are welcome to comment. The editors (not me) have to confirm each posting. So your comments will appear, but not immediately.
http://hometownsource.com/2013/12/25/joe-nathan-column-2013s-memorable-messages-about-education/
Looking back over 2013, I think Minnesota parents, policymakers, taxpayers and educators sent each other three major, memorable messages about public schools. Thanks to many folks who’ve responded to this blog throughout the year. Your comments helped me reach these conclusions:
–We’re willing to put more money into education, especially if it appears that additional funds will have a strong positive impact.
–We need to broaden the way we assess students and schools.
–Many people are looking for something different than the traditional approach to public education.
Let’s take them one by one.
First, Gov. Mark Dayton, Minnesota legislators and many local voters were willing to spend more money on education in 2013. For example, the Legislature allocated more than $170 million to help support all-day, every-day kindergarten and fund early childhood education scholarships for students from low-income families.
Moreover, according to the Minnesota School Boards Association, local voters approved 51 of 59 operating levies, and 23 of 26 requests for buildings or other capital expenses. The 86.4 percent local levy approval rate was the highest since the association began keeping track in 1980. Bloomington, Braham, Cambridge-Isanti, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Little Falls, Mounds View, Orono, Osseo, Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan, St. Louis Park and Stillwater were among the communities that passed some form of referendum.
Second, we need to broaden the way we assess students and schools. The Legislature responded to concerns about over-reliance on traditional, statewide, standardized tests. Led by people such as state Rep. Carlos Mariani, Sen. Patricia Torres-Ray and Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius, the Legislature eliminated its requirement that students must pass standardized tests in reading and writing before graduating from high school. An earlier requirement that students must pass a math test already had been eliminated.
Legislators substituted a mixture of assessments. Students will be asked to take tests designed to help them understand how close they are to meeting expectations of Minnesota’s post-secondary institutions that offer one-, two- and four-year programs. (But they won’t have to achieve a certain score to graduate.) Students also will be expected to develop plans for what they plan to do after high school. The Minnesota Business Partnership and Minnesota Chamber of Commerce are very concerned about removing the requirement that students pass tests before they graduate.
This change is part of why I think it’s so important, as I wrote last week, for the Minnesota Department of Education to issue an annual report on the number of graduates taking remedial courses on entering colleges and universities. The Legislature requires this be done yearly. But the last report was released in January 2011.
There’s also growing discussion among educators about other things that need assessing. Paul Tough, a speaker at the annual Education Minnesota conference in October, explained that successful students develop persistence and what he calls “grit.” Some alternative and charter educators in Minnesota have been talking about how this could be measured.
Third, many families are looking for something different than the traditional approach to public education. For example:
* Increasing numbers of students are participating in some form of dual credit courses (for high school and college credit). Marisa Gustafson of our (Center for School Change) staff did an analysis of Minnesota Department of Education data. Over the last several years, the number of Minnesota students taking Advanced Placement courses has increased by 44 percent, those taking International Baccalaureate courses by 70 percent, those taking College in the Schools courses by 14 percent and those taking Post Secondary Enrollment courses by 9 percent.
* The number of Minnesota families sending their youngsters to charter public schools increased again, as it has over the past 20 years. Charter K-12 enrollment statewide grew by more than 2,000 from the 2011-12 to the 2012-13 school year. Meanwhile, the number of K-12 students attending district public schools declined by about 4,800. Most Minnesota K-12 students still attend district public schools. But during the past decade, the number attending charters has increased about 30,000, while the number attending district public schools has declined by more than 40,000.
* A growing number of districts, including Anoka-Hennepin, Edina, Farmington, Forest Lake, Hopkins, Lakeville, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Osseo, Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan and St. Paul are offering options to their families. Minnesotans seem willing to spend more money on education, but not just for more of the same.
Joe Nathan, formerly a Minnesota public school teacher, administrator and PTA president, directs the Center for School Change. Reactions welcome,joe@centerforschoolchange.org.
Tim, I don’t know the poverty rate at the schools I attended in the 1940s and 1950s. At the time, no one tracked these figures. The schools were racially segregated as were all the public schools of Houston at the time (I graduated from high school in 1956), but the student body was economically and socially diverse. My high school was unusual in that it mainstreamed students with disabilities, quite unusual those days.
“The poverty crisis created the educational crisis. If we ignore the poverty crisis, we will never solve the educational crisis.” I agree, but I also believe the reverse is true: The educational crisis created the poverty crisis. If we ignore the educational crisis, we will never solve the poverty crisis. We need to work on both simultaneously. I believe there is a way to solve both issues at the same time (at least for the children), but how do we get the decision makers to listen? How close are we to making a difference? As a teacher and a parent, I’m on board for a grassroots movement. What’s the first step? My small voice has been creating sparks, but no evidence of a flame. Any advice?
Do you think that people are poor and homeless because of their teachers?
Not at all, but I do think our homeless were robbed of a proper education somewhere down the line, perpetuating their inability to rise above their circumstances. Children didn’t create their poverty status anymore than their teachers did, but a test driven education limited the opportunities for their parents, which has increased the number of families in poverty.
I also want to add that I am not disagreeing with you. If we create an educational system that takes care of all children, regardless of social status, we can correct two problems at once.
A lot of homelessness is a result of various mental illnesses, particularly the long-term homeless. Schools have no control over that. Many people I know (including my husband and I) are working multiple jobs because our salaries have been cut to the bone, while the wealthy are making obscene amounts of money. Schools have no control over that, either. These are just two examples of ways that schools have been affected by problems out of their control.
The meek shall inherit nothing.
Pauline your syllogism: [“The poverty crisis created the educational crisis. If we ignore the poverty crisis, we will never solve the educational crisis.” I agree, but I also believe the reverse is true: The educational crisis created the poverty crisis.”] is just wrong. The fact that you and others who say they agree with Diane believe it is disturbing to say the least.
Our economy has unnecessarily become much more unequal and one of the obstacles to fixing it is the lie that if people were just smarter or more qualified they could get better and higher paying jobs. Surely you know smart highly educated people working at jobs that they are overqualified for! Or worse not working at all!
All of the best studies on educational outcomes (some cited in Diane’s books) demonstrate that teacher quality only accounts for 10 to 15 percent of the variance in outcomes. Most of the rest of the variance is accounted for by socioeconomic status. So Diane is right; there really is not an educational crisis there is a crisis with our economy and one of its results is under-resourcing of some of our educational systems. The problems of under-resourcing are made worse by the privatization movement documented in Reign of Error.
The only way forward is the election of people like Bill DeBlasio as the new mayor of New York and the work of more heroes of education like BAT and Diane Ravitch.
So, according to your one-view-point-matters position, my middle-class students have nothing to worry about. Regardless of the teach-to-the-test mentality that limits their options in life, these students will be fine because they aren’t currently homeless. I have students in honors and regular classes who feel worthless because they are told the things that are important to them are not going to prepare them for college. Some feel inadequate because they don’t want to go to college; however, that’s the only path offered to them under the current educational system. I have beautiful, intelligent teenagers who are cutting themselves, who have a number of suicide attempts in their past, as well as a number of students who have committed suicide. The pressure to fit inside the one-size-fits-all education box is too great for them.
Yes. I do know people who have college degrees that are overqualified for the jobs they have or are not working at all, but they are not homeless. I have friends who are in debt because they went to college based on the propaganda that they will be nothing without a college degree. After 4-6 years of college, they are now working in a field they love that they didn’t need a degree for, but have huge college loans to pay off.
I have a 3rd grade son with learning disabilities who cannot add, subtract, or read well enough to understand the practice test directions, yet he is being asked to multiply and solve word problems he’s nowhere near ready to understand. I am currently teaching juniors who have been passed through the system who struggle the same way my son struggles. What are those teenagers going to be able to do with their lives, regardless of their middle-class status? How is my son going to be a productive member of society if he continues on this path? He cries every night about not wanting to go to school because he feels stupid. My only option is to quit the profession I love, even though I know I am making a difference in my students lives, so I can home school my son.
Although I respect what you have to say and agree that we have a poverty crisis, I will not push aside the problems that the current educational system is creating. Perhaps the solution is for the people who have power and influence is not to alienate the people who believe and support your position by being rude and elitist with your opinions.
Pauline, I don’t know how old you are or how long you have been involved with education, but the obsession with data and testing in its present metamorphosis is a more recent and far reaching iteration of past practices. We have never been as obsessed with standardized testing or using it to measure both student and teacher worth. My children, who are now in their late twenties and thirties were never exposed to this culture. The harm that neoliberalism is imposing on education has only now in the past decade slowly and insidiously begun to reach into high performing, more economically stable communities. These communities have always tested well, and their graduates have done well overall. That is not to say that the education system is fine and needs no improvement, but it is saying that it is not a failure where properly resourced and without the economic and social stressors of wide-spread poverty.
Great points and questions, Pauline. I agree.
Thank you, Ray. Sadly, I thought I was following a woman who wanted to make a difference in education. I now see that this blog is another attempt to push one agenda and one agenda only. Any opinions or questions that state otherwise are belittled. Maybe that’s why this movement isn’t picking up speed. As soon as people join the conversation with legitimate questions and concerns, they are alienated with snide comments. A true leader is versed in the art of compromise and compassion. There is no leadership here.
We all know that the plural of anecdote is not data. Ray’s “brave young woman who is surviving the tragic deaths of two siblings on separate occasions”, or a variant thereof, is well known to all of us who have taught in high-poverty, under-resourced public schools. But to focus on these successes will not change anything. It is like a local news item about the brave teen-ager who escapes from a burning home while rescuing her younger siblings, but it omits a discussion of the arsonists who set the fire, then fanned the flames of poverty.
In Boston, banks began a practice known as “red-lining” in the late ’60’s. Bankers literally drew a red line on a map around neighborhoods in which they refused to invest or lend money. White flight ensued, exacerbated by the disasterous desegration plan known as “busing” (a metropolitan solution to school segregation was never entertained). Arson became common as property values fell and owners could not sell their homes. Predictably, these areas of the city suffered economic collapse, from which some have still not recovered.
What is happening to our public schools in places like Chicago and Philadelphia, Newark, Hartford and L.A. is quite similar. Red lines have been drawn around communities which will not have quality public schools so that profiteers can flourish.
Hmmm Christine. Kind of a low move here to devalue my former students’ tragic life experiences. Subtext: “Yeah, yeah. Heard it before.” Not cool.
Care to respond to the substance of her post?
In the discussion of poverty vs. teachers we keep continuing the false dichotomy. It is not either/or. There are multiple factors impacting student achievement ( which of course should not be the only goal of education). But even if achievement was the only goal, there is a fair amount of research showing what portion ( in general) is attributed to different factors. Hattie’s work shows over 100 variables that impact achievement. Approximately, student characteristics impacts 50% and schools approximately 30% of student achievement. According to Haertal, the teacher impact on student achievement is only 10%. But regardless of the research, common sense dictates that blaming all of an achievement score on any one cause is irrational. And for each child it is probably different.
I agree that lowering standards for children from poverty as Cindy mentions is it’s own form of bigotry. But a child who is homeless, or has parents who are incarcerated, or does not feel safe may not be able to learn as well as a child without crisis despite a great teacher. I have many examples of children who had incredible odds against them who were fortunate enough to have a good teacher who helped them to surpass their circumstances. One girl from poverty who was financially supporting her family I helped last year by getting her into a credit recovery program. She now graduated and is doing well in the military. But I also have failures, where the issues surpassed the influence of the schools. One boy who finally was close to passing Algebra so he could pursue his dream of entering a selective marine biology high school program, was arrested when caught robbing a bank with his father. This would fit what research says. Schools are an important variable in children’s lives and we need to to do the best job with the influence we have. But we are not the only variable – and poverty comes with some large obstacles not always overcome by excellent schools or teachers.
I was called condescending on the post for mentioning that anecdotes did not equal research. Christine I may have to use your line” We all know that the plural of anecdote is not data. “
Janna, you are right. We are by no means the only variable. We do what we can.
Keeping it real.
Not rheeal.
From the late Gerald Bracey, EDUCATION HELL: RHETORIC VS. REALITY (2009, p. 153):
[start quote] The first person I ever head say “poverty is not an excuse” was Lisa Graham Keegan, then state superintendent of Arizona public schools, at a large-scale assessment conference in Phoenix. Had I been in position, I would have kept onto the stage and said “I agree. Poverty is not an excuse. Poverty is a condition. it is like gravity, affecting everything you do on the planet.” My way at the time, I guess, of calling it “an accumulation of small deprivations.” The person I’ve most recently heard wave off the impact of poverty is District of Columbia Public Schools’ Chancellor Michelle Rhee who, donning a scholarly mantle, called it “complete crap” (Fields, 2008). [end quote]
I have followed this blog closely since its inception and while I have not literally read every single one of the comments and postings, I have read the overwhelming majority. I can assert with close to full confidence: “poverty” has been not used here as an excuse for anything. Yes, there have been numerous discussions of [excuse the jargon] “in-school” and “out-of-school” factors that affect teaching and learning. Yet even when people have mentioned some of the overwhelming issues and situations faced by homeless youth, students who are victims of violence, young people afflicted by mental health issues, those who are in and out and back and forth from school to juvenile detention, English language learners, the gifted and not so gifted and everyone in between, etc., there is absolutely none of the pearl clutching, fainting on the couch squeals of “the sky is falling”—
Like we hear from those who claim that critics of the education establishment use “poverty as an excuse.”
No, what you see on this blog are good people trying their best, often under very trying circumstances, to follow Mother Teresa’s advice:
“Not all of us can do great things. But we can do small things with great love.”
Most Krazy props to all the dedicated and hardworking public school educators and staff from a most friendly, yet determined, KrazyTA.
😎
Thanks for continuing the conversation, Diane. Here is my response: http://tinyurl.com/mskfpmg I hope we can have more exchanges in 2014.
I hope Diane doesn’t exchange with you. She asked you to read her book. You said you probably wouldn’t. I guess that makes you the type of person that likes to cycle endlessly by filling in the blanks of short meaningless interviews and conversations. You would rather argue than completely understand her point. For those of us that have read her book, we will sit back and watch you cycle around and around. Looking silly and never actually getting anywhere. Read the book. Then come back here and argue.
Perfectly put, Bill.
As a teacher of ELA, I could never accept this appallingly low standard of academic engagement from myself or my students. Debate requires erudition, and erudition requires reading.
I am unable to say if I agree or disagree with Mr. Salazar’s views, but as an NBCT, I am shocked at his reluctance to behave like the academian he potrays himself to be.
Mr. Salazar, I am not rendering an “F”‘ but your report card says “Incomplete” until you do the coursework . . . . . all of it.
I, as someone deeply and proudly entrenched en la communidad Latina, suggest that you provide the excellence you are capable of . . . . Soundbite responses are childish.
Got to the part where he admitted he didn’t read Diane’s book and he said he probably won’t read it. Then skipped down to see if comments were enabled. Nada. He has no intention of generating dialogue so I won’t be reading what he writes either.
There enabled. You log in with your Facebook account. Sorry. Can’t hide behind an incognito.
Sorry, but I am the actual working poor and can’t afford to use my real name and risk losing my low-paid non-union teaching job just to dispute trolls who come here to implement divide and conquer against caring people who advocate addressing poverty.
I am puzzled by the tone of your reply to what was clearly friendly criticism. Mr. Salazar’s fundamental point is, I think, quite sound: even firmly fact-based arguments (such as ours, that poverty is strongly correlated with poor performance on nationally-normed tests) can be turned into political excuses for inaction, or for wrong action. We live in a “sound-bite” culture, and too often nuanced argument–and perhaps especially argument that would require difficult actions if taken seriously–is flattened into slogans that can be used, and often are used, to perverse ends.
Any fair observer of the last sixty years of urban American education understands the complexity surrounding debates on school choice. Yes, we want every neighborhood school to be a good and adequately funded one: but that is not the present reality, while each year the children in the neighborhood are a year older. The parents of children denied educational opportunity will seek it where thety can. Yet the very parents choosing KIPP for their children, rather than the run-down neighborhood school too many experienced teachers are reluctant to work in, are the ones we want as allies in the fight against privatization.
Mr. Salazar is in effect calling for less balkanization of the anti-“reform” movement: for seeking ways to make the defense of public education defensible to those now most abused by it.
It’s a call we would all do well to heed.
I think this is right and is important to think about if we want a better education for all.
Thanks, Jeff. Well said. I value your courage and I’m grateful you spoke up.
The discussion of generational poverty is a response to the ridiculous claim by reformers that higher standards, harder tests, better teachers, and school choice is the solution to America’s failing, inner city schools. The educational chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and nothing they offer addresses this.
NY teacher: Exactly right. Higher standards do not address generational poverty; nor do harder tests; nor do charter schools, etc.
Some outstanding district & charter schools have helped youngsters become the first in their family to enter & graduate from some form of higher education, whether it be a 1, 2 or 4 year program, and to help them find jobs they enjoy. They use a combination of approaches, not just a single strategy.
But educators who believe it can’t be done, won’t be able to do it. Having a deep belief in the power of education isn’t enough, but it is vital.
The same can be said of public schools.
People might be interested in Children Defense Fund founder/director Marian Wright Edelman’s 2011 Keynote speech here at the 2011 National Charter School Conference in Atlanta.
She makes clear that she believes in the importance of working on issues outside and inside schools. She also (about 2:10) says that she is “deeply grateful” to people in the charter school movement.
She also asserts: “Poor and minority children can do anything other children can do.”
Marian Wright Edelman does think that high expectations, charter schools and other public schools can be helpful. “We’ve got to challenge low expectations.” “Education is the civil rights issue of our time.”
“Charters are an important part of the answer” she says but we also need to build bridges. She concluded: “You’re doing God’s work. Stand up. Keep at it.”
And obviously, Joe, we end up talking in anecdotes because the numbers of people who are able to escape generational poverty through any current educational venue are small. Otherwise we would have beautiful graphics showing the trend lines leading out of poverty through school. While we want to offer quality educational opportunities to all children, we have not found any pedagogy that defeats poverty even close to 100% of the time. That doesn’t mean we quit trying; it just means we don’t accept the latest easy and unproven answers.
I’d suggest watching the speech from Marian Wright Edelman that I posted earlier. She calls for a range of actions but she is far more supportive of the charter movement as part of what’s needed than most people who post here.
So the pro-privatization Marion’s corporate “reform” union-busting, Stand on Children son Josh did not fall very far from the tree after all. They do not represent the Black community today or advocate for addressing poverty any more than Obama does: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/8/obama-gets-poor-ranking-on-mentions-of-poverty/?page=all
While we disagree on some things, I suspect that we are united in love of music and admiration for Nelson Mandela. Here’s a musical tribute to him:
http://enpundit.com/woolworths-nelson-mandela-tribute/
Corporate education “reformers” and those who support their agenda would like Americans to believe that the achievement gap between lower income and higher income students is a US problem. It is not:
“International tests show achievement gaps in all countries” http://www.epi.org/blog/international-tests-achievement-gaps-gains-american-students/#sthash.Vf4AHRD6.dpuf“
Actually, I think some of us would say that the experience of some schools around the country shows how to help break the chains that pull some youngsters down.
One of the heaviest of these chains is one that gets the least conversation. That is, the chronic misbehavior of students, especially in inner city schools. As long as public schools must take all students this is one chain that will be hard to lift or break. This is the one huge advantage that charter schools have over public schools – they are free of the heaviest of chains.
NY Teacher,
Wouldn’t it be better to say that it is one of the one huge advantage that charter schools students have over public school students?
As has been noted here many times, not all district public schools take all students. There is a fearsome inequity between neighborhood schools and magnets with admissions tests….indeed in some places educators helped start charters because they were so frustrated with the elitism of quasi private “magnet schools.”
Another thing that some districts do is shuttle off poorly behaving students into “alternative schools.” This has happened and is happening all over the country.
I certainly agree that not all charters serve all kinds of kids – but let’s be honest with ourselves that neither to all district public schools.
Absolutely!
We agree about this.
The percentage of disruptive public school students that get shuffled off to alternate learning programs is miniscule. Zero comparison to charters on this all important issue. This is why I would never begrudge any parent who wants the best for their child.
My “Absolutely” response was to TE.
Thanks for clarifying, NY Teacher. Given the large number of comments on this thread today, it’s a bit difficult to follow.
I think that a fundamental difference in Diane’s and Ray’s point of view is the level at which they are viewing the issue.
Diane is looking at the problems in the American Education System on a National, system wide level. Her conclusions, that childhood poverty is rising, and that poverty correlates with much of the inequality in educational outcomes, is correct. This is proven time and again in any study you will find on the matter. For example, this study about NYC education outcomes by neighborhood, race, and economic class illustrates the problem. Of course, any reader on either author’s blog will agree.
Click to access ED536677.pdf
Ray is looking at the problems in the American Education system at a school/teacher/student level. He is correct to point out that many teachers will overlook poor or minority students, and that these students have high potential. He is right that for individual students, school choice may be an effective means of finding a better education. He is right that teachers must work as hard as they can for all their students, regardless of their backgrounds. And he is right that there are many examples of effective usages of the CSS.
However, when looking at a bigger picture, it is not enough for individual teachers to simply work harder or better. Economic and Racial Inequality is too large an issue that damages countless areas of life in America. Education is possibly the most effected. Just because this is an issue that must be addressed for system wide change does not mean that it is the only solution.
The conflict between the two (correct me if I am wrong) is that Ray wishes Diane would respond to the Student/Teacher/School level in her book. I have not finished “Reign of Error,” although I read the Great Life and Death, but I gather that these works are not meant to be a guide for individual teachers in their practices, but more of a critique of the national “status quo” (which both authors oppose). I also read this blog fairly frequently, and I know that Diane includes the perspectives of students, teachers, parents, and administrators almost daily. I find Ray’s critique of needing more representation from these audiences somewhat strange.
Ray, I think you could benefit from reading into Diane’s work on a systems level, not as a guide for ways to personally serve students: YOU and other teachers are the experts on this. Diane is fighting to give teachers and educators a say over school governance and national policy. And if you are looking for work regarding educational inequality on a more local level, there are many amazing books that would fit your needs.
Thanks, Gabe. I think Diane also needs to fight to hear other perspectives who are not exactly like hers. She can’t always and only be the one who is right.
No one ever said she was.
Diane has always upheld the notion that diagreement is healthy. Where have you been?
I encourage you to write with your critical thought and not your rash emotions . . . .
Gabe: I think you have made a critical point.
Ray Salazar: please reread, slowly and carefully, what Gabe wrote. Then ponder the simple fact [easy to verify] that there are people who post here all the time that not only have a wide variety of views, but a few are diametrically opposed to the POV of the owner of this blog.
Diane Ravitch has demonstrated by word and deed that she is fighting an uphill battle to OPEN discussion, not CLOSE IT. To imply otherwise is patently false. For example, going on MSM forums where she was outnumbered two or three to one, with a moderator acting on behalf of the “education reformers”—only for the purpose of opening dialogue and discussion. And then there is BRIDGING DIFFERENCES, a dialogue between Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch that I followed for three years [it went on between those two for five years]. Diane Ravitch showed character and courage in subjecting herself to a very public [and I am sure at times, uncomfortable if not painful] process of give and take that required her to challenge some of her own very strong opinions and actions—but she showed the moral courage to confront her own mistakes and correct them.
I ask you, sir, to subject yourself to the very smallest taste of what she went through. Don’t be afraid to apologize for being wrong.
To give you and others a very small taste of what I am talking about, there was a posting on this very blog called DEBORAH MEIER REVIEWS “REIGN OF ERROR”—
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2013/09/18/deborah-meier-reviews-reign-of-error/
😎
Gabe –
I must respond to this false, scurrilious and slanderous accusation:
“He is correct to point out that many teachers will overlook poor or minority students, and that these students have high potential.”
What research – or life experience – do you have to support such an attack on those who get up every day and go to the frontline in schools that are physically deplorable, dirty, and underfunded?
I spent 36 years in classrooms not unlike those at Trenton Central High
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/joe-fisicaro-trenton-central-high-school-conditions_n_4400573.html). Of course there were a few teachers who behaved in this way, but never the many. And the many could never understand why the administration didn’t give those folks the boot.
Thanks, Christine. At some schools I’ve taught at there have been few of these. At others–lots. It depends. Thanks for commenting.
And I have taught in the same city for 45 years at many schools in low income areas, both public and private, where by far the majority of teachers have been dedicated and determined to make a difference in the lives of poor and minority students.
I just found a recent survey report by UNICEF-IRC on Child well-being in rich countries. Survey is conducted based on 5 dimensions: Material well-being; Health and safety; Education; Behaviours and risks; Housing and environment, respectively.
Of all 31 nations, US is ranked 29th overall, trailed only by Bulgaria and Romania. It’s 30th in Material well-being; 26th in Health and safety; 28th in Education; 29th in Behaviours and risks; and 27th in Housing and environment.
Report is made in comparison to Japan, but it pretty much explains where the US is located internationally.
Click to access rc11_comparing%20japan_fnl.pdf
If some people still believe that poverty is an excuse and teachers are responsible for this national plight, they better stick their heads out from the sand. It absolutely makes no sense.
Just factor out the poor kids from the survey, as folks here like to do when discussing PISA results, and the USA will look great!
Tim, the study is about Child well-being. Not a test score. It clearly focuses on poverty and social inequality. Your suggestion to weed out poor kids from survey doesn’t make sense. UNICEF is not the same agent as OECD. US is not gonna improve the social-well being of child unless they are able to fix a widening socio-economic inequality. And it certainly cannot be done by getting #1 in PISA scores.
So what’s coming through here is “read the book.” Ravitch is a full-time professor whose job entails publishing lengthy pieces of work. I’m a full-time high-school writing teacher. I don’t have a reality where I can devote hours and hours to research and writing. The implication here is that I can only enter the conversation on Ravitch’s terms. It’s like people are saying, “You are only worthy of exchanging ideas if you read all of her work.” Is that what will make me worthy of an idea exchange? If the answer is yes, then you’re promoting the same unfair social structures you’re criticizing. Let me read a few more responses here.
I am a busy teacher as well, teaching in a low-income suburban school, and the book took me almost no time to finish. Diane is very pithy in her commentary. I probably finished the entire book in under 4 hours over the course of about 3 days. I think it’s really worth your time, Mr. Salazar. Thank you for what you do for your students in very difficult circumstances.
Sounds like you didn’t want to do your reading homework and now you want blame the teacher because you don’t understand the class discussion.
PERFRECTLY PUT!!!!!!!
Louisiana Purchase and NY Teacher: thank you for your comments.
Absolutely nobody asked Mr. Salazar to spending his remaining years writing and researching and catching up on all of Diane Ravitch’s past, current and future writings.
It’s a simple matter of respect and decency. Want to criticize her? Then read her latest work—not a life-altering task—and agree or disagree as one sees fit.
But show a little common courtesy in making sure you understand what her POV really is. And if you are an ethical person, then model that sort of decency for others. Lead by example.
It’s that simple.
😎
You should only enter the conversation if you know what you are talking about and not making up straw men to attack. The idea that you can’t read even one book is kind of ridiculous, as is the idea that you will rely on other people’s opinions of what she wrote. I hope you don’t teach that to your students.
> It’s like people are saying, “You are only worthy of exchanging ideas if you read all of her work.” Is that what will make me worthy of an idea exchange?
Sir. It depends on whom you are debating/discussing with. If your opponents are some kind of ignorant blubber-mouthing non-sense about how to teach kids in school, you don’t have to take time to exchange ideas because many of these people do not really know how to make a better argument. You can smack them down at one fell swoop. But, if you are going to duel with someone who has a broad scope of knowledge and expertise solidified with academic credentials and highly credible research, you need to take enough time to learn who s/he is in the first place. Otherwise, you will end up wasting your time groping for nothing–or worse, making misinformation or false accusation–like some reform-minded folks (i.e., Rhee, Duncan, Immanuel).
Ray, aren’t you on winter break? I’m making a cup of tea and reading Reign of Error so at least I can make my own decisions. I checked it out the first time, didn’t have time to complete it, put it on hold, and just picked it up from the library. I don’t think that anyone is saying that you have to agree with Diane or with the other people posting here but if you are going to write articles, and ask for replies, you really should read the book. You can still watch the Packers vs. Bears game on Sunday.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment. I tried to respond to as many comments as I could. Seriously, I don’t think Diane’s or her followers’ views of me would change even if I had read the book. Over and over, people who have read the book are saying they agree with my views.
Finally, you can leave comments on my blog. You log in with your Facebook account. That’s the way my blog has been for a long time. It’s interesting that there are lots of comments here but few on my blog. This reminds me of the difference between safe space and brave space. It’s safe to defend Ravitch and challenge me here. However, it’s brave to go outside of this realm to stand on your own, own your ideas with your name, and speak for yourself–without Reign of Error shielding you.
Another article about Ray Salazar. Seems he has been attacking public schools and the teacher’s union for a while:
http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=2599
If you read the comments on the Substance column, I think you’ll find other Chicago public school teachers affirming that Ray is a veteran CPS teacher.
Teachers, like any other group, don’t always agree. I think he’s raising some important questions (and yes, I’ve been a St. Paul Public School teacher, a PTA president, and all 3 of our youngsters attended urban, non-admissions public schools, k-12.
Thanks, Joe! Yes, we are not all going to agree. Apparently, that’s not an option here. You’re either with us or against us. Hmmmm sound familiar?
Various people have called me nasty names in response to posts I’ve made here. But I continue to post because I often learn things and because some people write to say they find some things I say useful (it balances the folks who are quite insulting)
Meanwhile, there are examples of district & charter educators working with & learning from each other in ways that help youngsters. A group of newspapers has asked me to write for them each week, and I sometimes post the columns.
Here’s this week’s column: http://hometownsource.com/2013/12/25/joe-nathan-column-2013s-memorable-messages-about-education/
Yes, map. That’s the same source that said I was not a union member. Dues paid in full–always. Consider the source, bud.
And here, here is where I take on and call out the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennet: http://www.chicagonow.com/white-rhino/2013/06/tribnation-conversation-for-chicago-public-schools-ceo-too-easy/
And here–here is where I take on Mayor Rahm Emanuel after being invited to one of his “town hall” meetings: http://www.chicagonow.com/white-rhino/2012/01/mondays-town-hall-show-produced-directed-and-starring-rahm-emanuel/
Those who read this post will see that Mr. Salazar has plenty of concerns about Chicago’s mayor.
Thanks, Joe. I do. LOTS of us do, right?
Though I was born in Chicago, I haven’t spent any time there since he was mayor. So I don’t feel I have enough info to make an intelligent comment.
I did spend the fall of 1969 in Chicago, being trained by Saul Alinsky at Industrial Area Foundations, serving as an intern for an independent liberal alderman on the north side, working with some folks involved with the Conspiracy Trial. And I have know and learned from some people at the Small Schools Workshop. But I don’t have enough first hand info about your current mayor to comment.
Here–another one criticizing outdated instructional practices in CPS: http://www.chicagonow.com/white-rhino/2013/12/chicago-public-schools-african-american-studies-an-outdated-approach/
I never said he wasn’t a union member. I was just pointing out that he has attacked public schools and teacher’s unions. That is what the tone of the questions indicates. And don’t call me, bud. It’s rude.
George Schmidt from Substance DID. He changed the headline only after people spoke up. But how dare I challenge those in power, huh?
I was just pointing out where you are really coming from because you tried to paint yourself as something else. That’s all. Sorry to get you so upset, but it is the truth.
Says the person named, “MAP.”
Says the person who claims to understand poverty but has no concept of how workers today risk losing their jobs and becoming impoverished in this economy just for speaking their minds.
As someone who has never had the opportunity to join a teachers union and has thus been in poverty for most of my career, I cannot understand those who are capable of flaunting, exploiting and trashing their union job protections.
And here–here is where I take on the monopolizing Academy for Urban School Leadership for its deficit-based views: http://www.chicagonow.com/white-rhino/2011/09/this-school-year-dont-teach-like-a-champion/
But I understand, it’s not in a book so you may not read it. But if you do, join in the conversation outside of the protective wall here.
The protective wall that has been keeping you and you opinions shut out of here? Really?
The one that encourage everyone to hover around Ravitch. Come on, you don’t even post your name.
This self-important guy is forgetting that Ravitch invited him to her blog. That is nothing new, We have been having these poverty debates for as long as she’s had the blog, including a very long discussion with those similarly encamped in denying the need to address poverty just the other day.
Teachers are not followers of Ravitch; they feel like they have finally found a voice in her because they have been ignored for three decades. Too bad there are some rogue teachers who straddle both sides of the fence and cling to the “soft bigotry of low expectations” cliche, while failing to rage against the hard racism of unobtainable goals, such as 100% proficiency by next week, and developmentally inappropriate standards –all of which resulted from policies based on that claim.
If anyone thinks that education is still the path out of poverty, as our government would like everyone to believe, then they need to read up on the dwindling middle class and the lack of decent paying jobs for college grads in this country, “millions of college graduates over all —not just recent ones— suffer a mismatch between education and employment, holding jobs that don’t require a costly college degree.” http://chronicle.com/article/Millions-of-Graduates-Hold/136879/
Those who do not advocate for addressing poverty are supporting the national policy of ignoring poverty and by so doing are themselves condemning millions to a life of strife.
It also seems like if you have the time to do all the questioning you do you would have time to read a book. It’s only 416 pages, and many of those are notes linking to research studies. What if a student in your class said, “Mr. Salazar, I wrote a book report, but I didn’t read the book and I’m just going on what my friends said about it.” Would that be OK?
Uh. This ain’t no book report. It’s a response to Ravitch’s ideas, which come out over and over.
No, it’s your rather warped interpretation of her ideas and what you have “heard from others”. You would never accept that from a student, would you?
Finally–here is where I call out Duncan’s entitlement, the Fordham Institute, a whole bunch of white leaders and yes, sorry, even Diane Ravitch. This is the one that generated the dismissive tweet from Ravitch: “I’m white. So what?”
http://www.chicagonow.com/white-rhino/2013/08/top-twitter-feeds-in-education-policy-full-of-klout/
Can you name the minority voices that are being silenced?
I can tell you the white ones being heard–vowel by vowel. As I said in the post, none of Diane’s post includes the voices of black or brown youth or their low-income families. There–all of them.
Any one is free to speak their mind here. Why don’t you invite some of your students to post here?
I think it is too bad and also embarrassing that Mr. Salazar feels he has to play the racism card (not to speak of the name-calling card).
Harold, regular readers of this blog have read many posts by students and teachers of color. I find it astonishing that anyone would claim otherwise. I defy anyone to identify any blog with as wide a range of views as are regularly expressed here. I welcome divergence of opinion. I do not welcome insulting and scatological language.
Ray, I read all of your links and find your hostility toward Diane puzzling. If she was working on the Chicago scene, I suspect she would agree with most of what you say, as I did. Because of Diane’s integrity as an educational historian and researcher and her openness to dialogue with dissenting voices, she has changed her position over major educational policy issues publicly, which has earned her the disdain of conservative thought leaders but has won over voices that had little audience before her two most recent books. Her blog has provided an opportunity for people from many different backgrounds to express frustrations and argue POVs. We are going to disagree, which is healthy, and I am sorry if you felt abused. Some of us tend to be very protective of Diane, and some of us spit and scratch when one of our individual sore spots is poked. As a writing teacher, you know how difficult it is to express oneself clearly and how difficult it is for the writer to identify where further detail is needed for clarity. I think you misunderstand Diane’s position and should take the time to read at least Reign of Error. I am still working my way through it.
I am anonymous because I once hoped to teach again. My age is against me (63). You, apparently enjoy the protection of a union’s due process procedures. Many people here do not, so we depend on people like Diane and, yes, you to give us a voice. Many of us have felt ignored and belittled. It is not an experience that affects only the minority communities, even though minorities have certainly taken the brunt of discrimination and have a right to feel outraged. I don’t think Diane pretends to speak to the specifics of any ethnic, religious, or racial group’s experience. Unconsciously, we are all most likely influenced by our own cultural core, so it is up to us through our diversity to try to expand the discussion to meet the needs of as many people and their communities as we can. Obviously, it will not be an easy task.
Salazar does not represent the Hispanic community of Chicago and he is not even current on issues in the neighborhood that he claimed to be familiar with, when he said they have no high school choices there. He failed to acknowledge that CPS has provided options within the school system for many communities.
In particular, CPS established and co-located a very unique high school, Community Links at Spry, one of the neighborhood elementary schools by 26th & California which serve the people residing in the Little Village community of Pilsen, on the Lower West Side, precisely in order to accommodate community needs.
And if he wants to complain about their test scores last year, the scores at the school where he teaches were actually lower: http://schools.chicagotribune.com/school/hancock-college-preparatory-high-school_chicago#psae with its 97.2% low income and 94% Hispanic students and only 23.9% meeting or exceeding standards, while they had 98.9% low income and 97.8% Hispanics and 26.3% who met or exceeded standards. –Not huge differences, but if you are going to complain about the state of other people’s houses, get to know them and clean your own house first.
TeacherEd,
I did not mean to imply that I see Ray Salazar as the voice of the Latino community in Chicago. I am a white suburban former special ed teacher with no claim to any first hand knowledge of the Chicago scene. My experience with minority children and their families comes from their growing presence in suburban and small urban communities outside of Chicago. The policies/actions of CPS and Rahm have sickened me; I am not a fan of bleeding the public schools to support charters and the community disruption it causes. At one point, I witnessed a community successfully fight off the attempt of a high school charter to open. The community could not afford to support it financially and were opposed to the selective nature of the proposed program that was intended to serve only the top tier students.
I was responding to his links more than his blog critique of Diane. The links demonstrated a hearty frustration with the powers that be. When he seemed to include Diane as a representative of the elite power structure, he lost me. I would be very interested in hearing more from the Latino community through this blog and the few progressive news outlets that still survive.
I find this dialog a crucial one, regardless of whether Ray is speaking to teacher/student paradigm & Diane to national policy. It would help the national discussion greatly if all seeking solutions to progressive goals could unite– such a political force might be able to expose & boot out the regime seeking to privatize/pulverize public goods & services.
The on-the-ground argument– teachers, students, parents in underemployed & abjectly-poor areas– is the short game. Turning national policy from the neoliberal-smallgov bloc toward more equitable practices could take decades; what of today’s & tomorrow’s children? The majority of this crowd is in urban areas. They are not looking for local control, they lost it years ago when the state took over their poorly-funded systems (or perhaps they still have ‘local’ school boards which are in fact engaged in city- or state-wide politics). This camp must seek wide-ranging policy solutions for any change at all, because there are no local bases of power.
Progressives with their eye on the big picture, usually from a middle/upper viewpoint, play the long game: they justifiably fear privatized solutions brought into poor areas as bandaids: for-profits won’t stop at a few inner-city systems, they’ll expand until the school-tax purse is empty, leaving lowcost test-factories in their wake. Most middle/upper-middles have enough money in their zone to retain local control (so far), & if aware, fiercely oppose state/fed incursions.
A balance which serves both groups must be found. At present, the urban groups welcome privatization as the only opportunity for change; those warning against it are at best oblivious, at worst racist; they are the same privileged crowd who looked the other way during decades of social promotion, dumbing down, & crumbling facilities. Meanwhile the outer-city/suburban group have been forwarding a chunk of their state &/or RE taxes to the poor for decades; they may complain but ultimately pay no attention to how the $ is being used (‘charter schools’? that’s for ‘those folks’). In my wealthy NE area, parents are only just beginning to become concerned at high-stakes-test & SGO-assessment incursions into their high-performing schools’ classtime, & haven’t yet made the connection that it’s coming from a state-wide effort to lower school costs in urban areas.
I hail from the suburban group & have to say my greatest concern is not as a parent, nor as a teacher, but as a citizen: how else does the public organize to maintain control of the public services for which it pays, if not through its neighborhoods? Whether you have children or no, in smaller cities and suburbs, you get to know your neighbors through events and institutions organized in the main around the education of the young. The wards which determine which school your kids go to are the same bases from which you choose members of the town council, & on up the chain. This holds for rural areas as well, no matter how poor. The incursion of privatization, as it splinters neighborhoods, splinters the ability to organize neighborhoods.
I recognize (having also spent 20yrs in the city) that political organization there is quite different. Lowermid/poor have no choice other than to engage in metro- or state-wide politics to get what they need. Mid-uppermid urbans, there by choice, accept school-choice workarounds for talented kids in exchange for the individualistic lifestyle afforded by the lack of strong neighborhood identity.
Could the answer be to re-embrace Shanker’s vision of charters? To simply insist that ‘school choice’ be under the umbrella of public school systems, no for-profits allowed?
Combined, it goes without saying, on a ban on high-stakes-testing/teacher evaluations. Shanker’s vision of charters included flexibility– experimental schools not subject to the same standards, so as to allow innovation, eventually feeding successful formulas back into the mainstream. Perhaps for-profits could be allowed, but only for experimentation WITHIN quality and financial standards– those garnering profits must be audited. The Shanker-style charters could be places to try out KIPP-style regimentation on students w/behavior-problems, standards schemes such as Common Core, G&T hs/college-credit hybrids, et al– all required to keep records for studies targeting programs that might work in larger systems.
Is it a choice if they have to go two miles away? Or is it displacement? http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/dont-call-it-school-choice
Irony: Ray Salazar saying he hasn’t the time to read Ravitch but expecting others to read his link, after link, after link, after link….
deutsch29: my thought exactly. What a stunning and pathetic contradiction!
Now if I may be so presumptuous given your proven expertise, would you permit me to take a small stab at data analysis with numbers and stats? [Noting in advance that I collected the data when the comments stood at 160 total.]
Ray Salazar: 31 separate comments [with link after link after link after link after link after link of—himself].
Diane Ravitch: 9 separate comments.
Joe Nathan: 15 separate comments.
Cindy0803: 5 separate comments.
Pauline Hawkins: 5 separate comments.
Attention! I do not list all the comments by those critical—sometimes bitterly so—of the author of this blog and her POV— 31 + 15 + 5 + 5 = 56. 56 divided by 160 = 35%.
Let me now contrast those figures—remember, they understate the actual number of comments by critical and hyper-critical commenters—with the following statements:
Ray Salazar: “I think Diane also needs to fight to hear other perspectives who are not exactly like hers. She can’t always and only be the one who is right.” [12-27-13, 5:23 PM]
Pauline Hawkins: “Sadly, I thought I was following a woman who wanted to make a difference in education. I now see that this blog is another attempt to push one agenda and one agenda only. Any opinions or questions that state otherwise are belittled. … There is no leadership here.” [12-27-13, 6:08 PM]
Cindy0803: “I could go on, but it hardly seems worthwhile. I’ve followed this blog long enough to know what the responses will be. Thank God there are teachers out there like Mr. Salazar who are willing to take some personal responsibility and initiative for reaching as many children as they can instead of wallowing in the poverty excuse. They are taking lemons and trying to make lemonade instead of just making a sour face.” [12-27-13, 9:09 AM]
Ray Salazar with 31 separate comments and Diane Ravitch with 9 separate comments [on her own blog no less!]—clear and compelling proof that she won’t allow a single different POV to be presented on this website. [Sound of edubully steep trap slamming shut.]
I now ask viewers of this blog to look at the length of the comments by the above mentioned. If you were to simply look at their volume and size in relation to all the comments, you would not know that the title of this website must surely be misnamed, for it obviously misstates the real owner at the top: “Diane Ravitch’s Blog A site to discuss better education for all.” [That edufraud steel trap slamming shut again.]
But the “best” of the worst came near the end of the thread. This time, missives from Planet Reality.
Two comments, by Harold [#1] and Diane Ravitch [#2]:
1), “I think it is too bad and also embarrassing that Mr. Salazar feels he has to play the racism card (not to speak of the name-calling card).”
2), “Harold, regular readers of this blog have read many posts by students and teachers of color. I find it astonishing that anyone would claim otherwise. I defy anyone to identify any blog with as wide a range of views as are regularly expressed here. I welcome divergence of opinion. I do not welcome insulting and scatological language.”
Edubullies: start with all that big pretty talk on this blog but as the discussion goes on, from out behind all the catchy slogans and hype and spin emerges a very different picture—
“Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” [Francois de La Rochefoucauld]
😎
Quite. Funny to see him having plenty of time to make dozens of comments here for whatever purpose he may have. It just makes me wonder if he really doesn’t have time for reading a book. I would end up spending all day or two if I were doing an exactly the same thing like Mr. Salazar. I could spend time reading several chapters of Reign of Error instead.
But, maybe, he has a point. We can’t expect people to read the stuff they don’t like if h/she is completely blindsided by a pre-conception of author.
Well, it sure looks to me like Salazar has been stroking those whom he thinks have supported his cause and chastised those whom he has perceived as detractors, so I see nothing different from every other con-artist who has played the pro-privatization, no need to address poverty hand here and elsewhere.
Funny, you would never know from hearing them that the majority of politicians and mainstream reporters, as well as most other websites, already promote the very same things as they.
Be sure to catch Bill Moyers this weekend, “The Pope, Poverty and Poetry” http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-the-pope-poverty-and-poetry/ I believe it’s the last time that Moyers & Company will be on for a full hour each week. Bill was going to call it quits altogether and people convinced him to stay, but he’ll be doing just half hour shows in the future.
It seems that Mr. Salazar’s true talent lies in polemics. There are sufficient straw men in his comments to have harvested all the hay from a homestead claim. Readers of this blog are accustomed to having to discern the true purpose behind diversionary tactics. Perhaps this is a bet, or a homework assignment, or an attempt to drive traffic to Mr. Salazar’s Facebook page. Or, perhaps, he just wants his name linked with that of Diane Ravitch.
Polemic is the word, Christine.
He’s had his fifteen minutes supported by manufactured toadie responses.
If he wants to play in the big leagues, let him write his own book. Then Diane can challenge him, push him to answer, and refuse to read his book.
Given his love for his own writing, I’ll bet that would go over well.
deutsch29: you know I respect your work and admire your refusal to compromise your personal and professional ethics. However…
Once again my email box is overflowing with outraged complaints from an aggrieved group that takes exception to one of the terms you used in your comments.
Frogs And Toads Against Libel [aka FATAL] are deeply offended that you have compared them to edufrauds and edubullies. Prejudice against them is so ingrained that even in the cutest fairy tales the causation always works in favor of kissing one of them and a handsome human prince appears—why isn’t it ever the case that an ugly human prince is kissed and turns into something better looking like a frog or a toad? And what is it with that ‘touch a toad and get a wart’ business anyway? Prejudice is always wrong.
Finally, perhaps the fatal flaw in your use of the term is that no frog or toad ever has or ever will accept $30,000 as Frederick Hess and $50,000 as William Bennett did [see 12-28-13 posting “Judge in Douglas Country, Colorado, Rules Against School Board for Buying Favorable ‘Studies’”] for torturing facts, logics and numbers in pursuit of $tudent $ucce$$.
In fact, leading researchers at FATAL University have discovered that there is a built-in genetic disposition to “do no harm to children” [insect larvae excluded] that precludes frogs and toads from imposing the hazing rituals of high-standardized tests on people or cramming CCSS down their throats.
As one prominent member of the research team remarked, “There is a better than 98% ‘satisfactory’ [thank you, Lord Gates!] certainty that our data settles this question, at least for the next ten years.” *Under a grant from the Hasty Optimists Klub.*
Data. Numbers. Stats.
What more could anyone ask for?
😎
“an attempt to drive traffic to Mr. Salazar”
Bingo!
He is not a talented polemicist if he relies on straw men. There is nothing inherently dishonorable about polemics.
Bravo, Diane, for your lucid responses to Ray Salazar’s ludicrous claims. What a good laugh he is. Slam dunk to you.
Summary of the Salazar School of Argumentation:
1. If you disagree:
a. simply dismiss the post with a simple “you’re not even using your real name,” fastidiously ignoring the common sense reason for the use of aliases.
b. or, if the person actually used their real name, drat them, seize upon a throwaway line or some other cursory bit of wording and inflict a Snark Attack, brevity being the soul of wit (as well as leaving little in the way of ammo for counter-snark).
c. in emergencies only: throw down the race card
2. If you agree:
a. graciously thank them and commiserate with them on how misunderstood you are, how inflexible they are, etc.
b. by all means, spike the ball if it’s been set for you!
Then assert it is “safer” to post on his Facebook, ha, ha, ha. Right.
Some of us are contacting member of Congress to urge immediate restoration of benefits for unemployed people. Others (if you have not done so) might want to do so.
Shame on Mr. Salazar. Obviously, he’s using the “Cliff Notes” method of homework completion (ie, Jon Stewart, et al). LOL
I think Ray’s first point was a interesting one worth thinking about, and doesn’t necessarily put him in conflict with Diane.
Ray and Diane agree that our education problems can’t be solved without solving our poverty problems. Ray’s point, as I understand it, is that the usefulness of this observation varies with one’s role in the education system. For policy makers or analysts, it’s quite germane. On the other hand, for teachers it can be distracting–teachers have a certain amount of control over what goes on in their classrooms, and much less control over their students’ poverty. In fact, it may be a useful fiction (if it is a fiction) for teachers of poor students to tell themselves that their students can learn as much as their rich peers in the suburbs. This is not a question of “truth” as much as it is a question of strategic framing. If there is a disagreement here, I think, it’s that Ray wants Diane to acknowledge that her framing may be distracting for teachers; Diane responds “I am trying to open the minds of Congressmen, Senators, Cabinet officials, Governors, and State Legislatures…” Fair enough.
The disagreement on school choice is a more interesting one, and also one to take seriously. Let’s say that allowing students and/or their families to choose their schools within large urban districts had differential effects: for poor students, like Ray, apparently, with the means/wherewithal/desire to choose better schools, the policy has a positive effect–they tend to end up in better schools and hence learn more. For the rest of the poor students, the policy has a negative effect, since it drains their schools of resources. The question of whether this policy is, in an overall sense, good or bad, is one of values, and not, I think, obvious. It seems as though Diane and Ray disagree about a policy that improves some poor students’ outcomes at the expense of others’. I think this could lead to an interesting discussion if each side would take the other seriously.
More broadly, in Ray’s and Diane’s posts themselves, and much more so in the comments, interesting substantive debates have very quickly turned ad hominem, angry, and rather vicious. As a curious (non-paying, it’s true) reader, I think I lose out, and I’d like to lodge a complaint.
Adam Sales, I hope you will note that at no point was I “vicious” or “ad hominem” towards Ray. I gave him many, many opportunities to comment on my blog, and I was sorry to see that he implied that I am racist. I made no charges against him. I try to maintain a tone of civility on this blog, and I intend to uphold it. Asking Ray to read my book–which is available for free in public libraries–is not an insult to him. It is part of reasonable discourse.
Thanks Diane! In addition, what you asked of him, was that he do the work before contributing to the debate. If he won’t do the work you, and the rest of us, end up sorting out his errors in reasoning. Actually, when I read the post it was immediately clear he hadn’t read your work. I know if I had written the post I might have been embarrassed and would have appreciated the re-direction. Perhaps he still will.
To Ray I’d like say, I mean that! I want you in this fight with us… You have bad intel, that’s no crime. Truth be told when I read your writing you sound like one of us… You clearly give a damn- I respect that! But you have the wrong information. It’s time to come home.
Diane, I have been following your blog for some time and truly believe that you want what is best for our students. I write the following because I truly believe that you, unlike many involved in education debates, might be open to reconsidering some of your choices.
I just reread the entire comment thread so I could be clear on how this conversation developed. I encourage you to do the same, though I understand if you do not have time to do so, given its current length.
While you have not, personally, engaged in vicious or ad hominem attacks, many of your commenters have. Given that you are clearly still reading comments, such attacks, leveled early and often, appear to have your tacit approval. Moreover, fairly early in the conversation, you publicly devalue Ray’s views based on his not having read your book. Note that this quickly became the primary line of attack against Ray, again reinforcing the idea that you support their behavior.
In addition, I could not find any instance where Ray accused you of being racist. He did, However, link to a post that pointed out that there are too few minority voices being held up in education, while pointing out that this is a thread at your blog as well. This is not a concern about racism, but about white privilege, which is indicated in his general commentary as well as through links at his blog. Your conflating racism with privilege is a common (if unconscious) deflection tactic of the privileged. The fact that you are clearly not aggressively racist does not negate claims that you are acting from a place of privilege.
As an example, suggesting that one’s views have less value because that person has not yet read your book is a classic deflection tactic. You are a public intellectual who spends a large amount of time arguing your case. As Ray attempted to point out, it is not unfair to respond to your public appearances as though they were representative of your general thought. Indeed, it would be very odd if your book did not align with the arguments you make publicly. Given that background, a requirement that those who wish to engage your ideas must read your book first serves only to limit the number and type of voices who can participate in debate. This is an exertion of privilege. Others who argue that surely Ray must have time to read your book because he writes a lot on his blog or comments here are simply reiterating that Ray exert his energies in the service of their privilege.
Lastly, if you are trying to maintain a tone of civility on your blog, your comments section is betraying that cause. I know that comment sections are difficult to police while still allowing free debate. However, the net effect of large numbers of people who support you (obviously the majority, as it is YOUR site) and are willing to dismiss (as opposed to debate) dissenting points of view greatly discourages open discourse.
Again, Diane, I offer this I offer this commentary with great respect and with a hope that the ideas here will cause you to at least reconsider your actions from a perspective that may not be familiar.
dianeravitch: you have been more than fair and civil in tolerating attempts to devalue your standing and that of many of your regular commenters. Any attempt to impugn your honor is repugnant.
For example, describing defense against sneers and jeers as offensive behavior is merely an attempt to privilege one narrow POV against many others. It is also known as shutting up and shutting down those with whom you disagree because you can’t use facts, logic and decency to bolster your assertions.
I’ve encountered this before, while growing up as a minority among a minority. I cannot even remember when I didn’t know that being called “Casper” [remember “Casper the friendly ghost. The friendliest ghost you know”?] was the nicest thing I could be called by a number of people who verbally and [when they could] physically abused me. And on more than one occasion I was bitterly called a “blue eyed blonde haired devil” to my face for absolutely no good reason at all—nope, I don’t have blonde hair, and at best my eyes are blue-grey. Not to mention the young black woman I met who thought she was complimenting me—or not—when she told me that such abuse should make me proud because “You showed black people they shouldn’t be afraid of white people.” *I didn’t respond in kind; racism is toxic and destroys everyone it touches if you let it. And frankly, I didn’t want to end up like her.*
I don’t want anyone to feel sorry for me. I don’t. And I hope I have taken to heart a very old idea: “Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it someone else; you are the one who gets burned.” [Buddha]
Forgiveness? My most fervent hope, really, is that I learned something from those experiences. And one of the best lessons I learned was:
You don’t back down to bullies. It doesn’t mean you let them provoke you into their sort of behavior and attitudes, lowering yourself to their level.
But why take that tack? Why not “fight filth with filth”?
“Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud.” [Sophocles]
But that’s just for losers, right? After all, why not put on a big show and act just like they do?
“I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.” [Frederick Douglass]
😎
Diane,
Thanks for responding. I’m sorry if I came off unclear. I was bothered more by the tone of the comments than of the original piece. Not all of the comments, to be sure, but some. I looked back at your post, and now I’m not quite sure what lead me to criticize your tone. Perhaps it was the accusation that he hadn’t read your book, though in retrospect that seems like a reasonable thing to say. So, I’m sorry. I think it’s a great idea to use your blog to respond directly to interesting critiques.
@Brett Gilland
“…fairly early in the conversation, you publicly devalue Ray’s views based on his not having read your book. Note that this quickly became the primary line of attack against Ray…”
No offense, Brett, but that would have been the case anyway. He admitted that upfront. It’s like the pundits that critique a movie they have not yet seen. The immediate comment from almost everyone is going to be “see the movie before you critique it.” In this case, it’s “read the book.” It’s not too much to ask.
As for privilege vs. race, his comment was used to discredit or devalue Dr. Ravitch’s voice because of her race. Yes, his subject matter might have been privilege, but his use of it here in the comments was as a racial hammer. No, he didn’t outright accuse Dr. Ravitch of being a racist, but the implication was there, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Finally, from my experience on this blog, Dr. Ravitch allows individuals to set their own tone of civility level within certain limits. Everyone’s level is different. She, herself, maintains a high tone, as, apparently, you do, too, and I thank you for that.
A Happy New Year to you.
Adam Sales: I would suggest you read the original posting and the thread following it in their entirety.
I have. I want to thank the owner of this blog for conducting herself with dignity and calm.
Peace on earth. Good will to all.
😎
To Brett Gilland: I appreciate the discusssion on white privilege that you introduce, and also that you describe how privilege can be deployed over and over again to disable other voices. Multiple perspectives, including dissent, are important both in civil discourse and as democratic and democratizing practice. Your post reminded me of this important truth. Marta
The biggest crisis of all is the destruction of the family unit. This crisis has increased poverty, increased crime and left our youth more disillusioned than any mode of education can be blamed for.
Listening to education experts debate the merits and flaws of various education systems without ever mentioning the elephant in the room is like watching the passengers bail out the Titantic and will likely lead to the same result.
Those who want to take a brief break from the debates and enjoy the value of the arts – and of famous people giving an unknown a chance, will enjoy this brief video of Billy Joel taking a chance with an unknown…with very positive results. I suspect that both Diane and Ray will enjoy this, along with others.
http://www.lifebuzz.co/billy-joel/