On January 1, the Washington Post reported that Arne Duncan and at least one other aide pressured NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio not to choose Joshua Starr as the schools’ chancellor because of his opposition to high-stakes testing, the centerpiece of the Bush-Obama “reforms.”
Politico reports the story and notes that this is not the first time Duncan has interfered in purely local decisions.
It writes:
“DID DUNCAN PICK NYC’S NEW CHANCELLOR?: The Education Secretary lobbied against Montgomery County, Md., Superintendent Joshua Starr, the Washington Post reports: “It was an unusual move by the nation’s top education official and came in the wake of Starr’s vocal criticism of some of the Obama administration’s school reform policies.” Education Department spokesman Massie Ritsch declined to comment to the Washington Post on “private conversations between the mayor and the secretary.” The article: http://wapo.st/1cn9tr7
“–Duncan has endorsed school leaders in the past: When Rhode Island state superintendent Deborah Gist’s contract was up for a vote last summer, Duncan spoke to reporters on her behalf. [http://bit.ly/1a2h5iV] He also offered support to D.C. schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson, reaching out to the mayor to keep her on permanently. [http://wapo.st/1g2CetY] And he’s never been shy about weighing in on other state and local decisions, either.”
I recall that Duncan tried to help DC Mayor Fenty win re-election so that Michelle Rhee would survive, but that didn’t work.
Duncan became involved in New York politics in 2009, when mayoral control was up for renewal by the legislature. An independent civic group called Citizens Union was about to issue a report that endorsed mayoral control but requested that the legislature change the law so that members appointed to the city board served for a set term, not at the pleasure of whoever appointed them. This would assure members a degree of independence, so they could vote their conscience. This infuriated Mayor Bloomberg, who believed that mayoral control should have no limits whatever.
I happened to be at the meeting when the issue was decided. I came to speak on behalf of set terms. Then someone read a letter just received from Secretary Duncan, explaining why set terms were a bad idea and why the mayor needed unlimited power to reform the schools as he saw fit. The recommendation to preserve independent voices was snuffed out.
As I read about the latest example of Duncan’s desire to manipulate city and state leadership so it supports his failed agenda, I thought about the two years I served in the U.S. Department of Education under Lamar Alexander, from mid-1991 to January 1993. Secretary Alexander was scrupulous about not interfering in local decision making. He used his bully pulpit, as all cabinet secretaries do, but he never tried to influence the choice of local leaders. He respected the principle of federalism. Apparently, Duncan missed the class on federalism.
Somehow I got the impression when I worked at the US Department of Education that it was illegal for Cabinet members to get involved in local elections or appointments, but I must have been wrong. Let’s just say it was generally understood to be inappropriate.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
One hopes that Congress or the IG will investigate. Sadly, with this crew in DC that isn’t likely to happen. I can’t wait till the history of this era is written. Poor Arne. Ain’t, I mean It won’t look good. Here’s hoping for real change in 2014. Happy New Year to all.
LikeLike
Thank you Diane. Duncan is far more concerned about politics than educating children. This was petty. Jazzman gives great background here
http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-petty-jealousy-of-arne-duncan.html
LikeLike
I just wrote this under the original blog piece but will copy it here since it is relevant. Education has become not only privatized but also incredibly politicized. All in the name of the children!!!
And we are surprised about Duncan’s interference why? Do not under estimate the power, influence and the conviction of the “reformers.” Just look at who is Colorado’s junior Senator and how he got to be in the US Senate. From Denver Public Schools superintendent to Senator in one easy step – and a few phone calls from DC.There are no limits to what the “reformers” will do to try to prove their solutions are right. They have been particularly successful in Denver in silencing dissent.
LikeLike
Arne Duncan should read the Tenth Amendment like a detective.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Click to access GPO-CONAN-1992-10-11.pdf
LikeLike
Agreed. I’d like to abolish the federal Department of Education for one. So much more…so much more…
LikeLike
What’s clear, is Duncan doesn’t care about the 10th amendment or legal constrains on his shameless behavior because he knows he’s immune from punishment.
LikeLike
Should he? Of course not. Will he? Of course. The only question is, what can be done about it?
LikeLike
In general, no he shouldn’t. But if ever there was a case where he should, I wish he would look into this misuse of education $$:
http://www.plunderbund.com/2014/01/02/state-audits-show-ecot-founder-william-lager-was-paid-millions-for-undocumented-work/
Pretty sure our Gov., AG, Treasurer and GOP controlled state house will not do anything about this travesty – they are all beneficiaries of Lager’s political contributions.
LikeLike
IMHO, this is exactly the type of abuse that the DOE was created to control and put a stop to. But ironically (and sadly), this is the last thing that Arne Dunan’s DOE actually would investigate. He’s surely aware of all the zillions of charter school scandals like this one, yet he continues to support charter schools. Gee, I wonder why that is?
LikeLike
As politicians focused on raising standards for America’s public school children and teachers, they lowered standards for the oligarchy they serve, themselves and their cronies:
LikeLike
Diane — Why do you even bother to frame this discussion in the form of a question? (Should Duncan Meddle in Local Issues?) Clearly by using the word “meddle” you have made up your mind already. Time and again you demonstrate that you have zero interest in having open discussions about these topics. You’re entitled to advocate for your agenda, but what compels you to maintain the appearance of this being a blog for fair and reasoned discussion about education? I think it’s time that you fully embrace this second career in mass marketing.
LikeLike
Go ahead, then. You defend Duncan telling de Blasio not to pick Starr. I’d like to hear your argument.
LikeLike
MR. RATNER–this in an opinion-editorial blog, not a newsblog. Journalism ethics oblige news reporters to be denotative in reporting events; those same ethics invite “columnists” and other editorial writers to express opinion. You are applying the wrong standard to this discourse, perhaps because you are playing “gotcha” with Dr. Ravitch, which is a media ploy of misrepresenting and ridiculing an adversary on false premises. Dr. Ravitch is scrupulous in getting her facts right; she brings to this blog the perspicacity of a scholarly historian. The wild, unresearched, and unsubstantiated claims of Sec’y Duncan, Billionaire Gates, media darling Rhee, and others, lacks the substance and depth we find daily on this blog.
LikeLike
Mr. Shor,
The tag line “A site to discuss better education for all” implies that there will be a discussion. When one uses loaded terms (like “meddle”), that tends to stifle an actual discussion. Perhaps Dr. Ravitch prefers to preach to the choir. If so, then great, but honesty would then require revising the tag line, no?
LikeLike
TO: Andrew Ratner & SC Math Teacher
My, my … how weak and thin-skinned people are about words.
The Constitution specifies that education is supposed to be operated by the state and local levels—with the Constitution allowing ZERO oversight of, or interference by the federal government with state and local governance of education.
Therefore, when someone at the federal level contradicts the Constitution and attempts to impose federal control over the operations of a local district—in effect nullifying and interfering with the democratic choice of 75% of NYC citizens who voted De Blasio in as mayor to do stuff like… oh… choosing whom to appoint as NYC Schools Chancellor—one can rightly use the verb “meddle” to describe his actions.
FROM:
—————————————–
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meddle
med·dle (mdl)
intr.v. med·dled, med·dling, med·dles
1. To intrude into other people’s affairs or business; interfere. See Synonyms at interfere.
2. To handle something idly or ignorantly; tamper.
———————————————————-
If U.S. Secretary of Education applying pressure on a city mayor not to appoint someone to a local school district position doesn’t fit the definition of “meddle”, then what-the-hell does? In that case, the word has no meaning.
LikeLike
SC Math Teacher,
It doesn’t look as if discussion was stifled here despite the load that all words carry in any rhetorical package. Some commentary pieces run with the grain, some run against it, and some rotate around it.
Perhaps she could have written “lobby” or “interfere” or “influence” instead of “meddle.” Would one of these sit with your word-smithing stomach better for what actually occurred here?
LikeLike
Andrew Ratner, this is a blog, not a dictionary. I write what I want, and I back it up with evidence when it exists. Many of those who post, including me, have a point of view. If you don’t like the blog, you are not required to read it. It’s a free country: free for you to express your views, and also free for me to express my views.
LikeLike
What a silly argument. It’s ridiculous for anyone even remotely familiar with Diane’s history and current views to think that she considers the corporate education “reform” agenda promoted by Duncan et al. to be a “better education for all.”
LikeLike
Please re-read my post (to which I believe you refer). You misunderstood it.
LikeLike
I did not misunderstand. Diane has seen many sides of these issues and the evidence is clear to her that corporate education “reform” is not a “better education for all.” Others are free to express opinions to the contrary here, but it’s silly to expect Diane to take a neutral stance when she believes such policies and practices are harmful –and this is HER blog.
LikeLike
I’m thinking rhetorical, but hey. I could be wrong.
LikeLike
If you want “Fair and Balanced”, there is always Fox News. Right?
LikeLike
Andrew,
I am interested in an open discussion about Arne Duncan’s recent lobbying for New York City’s next school chancellor. I give you the floor first….
LikeLike
I definitely see your point, but it is true that this blog is not objective in the way walter conkrite had to be. This is information, but it is presented in Socratic discourse. We need more people to join this conversation who frame things in another light so I do not see attacking you as productive… .quite the opposite. But I believe the heart of this issue regional dialect. While “meddle” is a verb with negative connotations, it really isn’t as serious as “interfere” which is exactly what Duncan is doing. I believe Diane slips into occasional southern colloquialism, which isart of her southern charm, though I don’t think she meant it any other way. What word would you choose? These dang headlines have to be pretty provocative to attract readers, and I cannot say I read anything that is cinpleteky objective that isn’t dull . Everything is an argument!
LikeLike
Andrew, you’re upset about Ravitch’s “agenda” on her own blog but not Arne’s agenda in districts and states across the nation?
Ravitch’s “agenda” IS to argue for “fair and reasoned” education practice.
Which “Andrew Ratner” are you? I want to read about your credentials.
LikeLike
Mr. Ratner and SC Math Teacher: Maybe you haven’t noticed, but this is Diane Ravitch’s blog, not Arne Duncan’s blog. If Diane Ravitch can’t express her opinions on her own blog, where is she supposed to express them? Your silly comments remind me of people writing Letters to the Editor of the Washington Post remanding the Post for not being Fair and Balanced. Uhm, it’s the Post, what do you really expect?
LikeLike
SC Math Tchr–“discussion of better education for all” means the airing and sharing of opinions; news reporters gathering and writing news stories are not “discussing” events; they are obliged to denotatively report them. This is a discussion blog which means opinions and editorializing. If Dr. Ravitch pitches the word “meddle” that is certainly “connotative” and “agonistic” rhetorically but it is not improper given the discourse of this blog. If some feel dissuaded from commenting b/c of the word “meddle,” that is imo too delicate a sensibility for disputation. I post often in response to blogs/texts etc I disagree with. Dr. Ravitch invites disagreements unless they are insulting or vulgar. Perhaps you have seen in this blog posts by Joe Nathan who often pursues disagreements. I see in this incident an attempt to characterize Dr. Ravitch and this blog which is unfair. The side that favors and pushes CCSS has great media coverage and support which repeats their messages again and again, so if you want to campaign against unfair media coverage, I’d start with the publications like Education Week which have accepted money from CCSS-promoter Gates and the major news media which continually trumpet CCSS which has no research base to support its extravagant claims.
LikeLike
Not talking about unfairness. Ravitch can do as she pleases. Just a poor choice of words for someone who purports to want “discussion”.
LikeLike
People are free to discuss opposing viewpoints here and I often see you doing just that, so get off the trash Diane bandwagon and show some respect for our hostess.
LikeLike
Thanks, SC.
Shor – I’m not playing “gotcha” with Ravitch. This isn’t a matter of semantics. It’s a matter of having constructive and honest discussions about truly complicated issues in education without resorting to cheap and indecent ploys like linking the school shooting in Nevada to “testing” (see October 22, 2013). In this regard, I find little difference between “media darling Rhee” and Ravitch. It’s nearly impossible to have open and fair exchanges about educational policy when they both position “children” like human shields against opposing views. Actually Ravitch is worse: she’ll describe anyone who doesn’t fall into her worldview as “not caring about children” while Rhee will just drones on about “putting children first.”
LikeLike
Really? No difference between Ravitch & Rhee.
Well, just for starters… then how come Rhee recently and cowardly bitched out of a scheduled February debate with Dr. Ravitch?
This debate was schedule months in advance. Rhee kept piling on condition after condition, demand after demand for her to agree to participate.
“I must have a ‘second’… as in a second debater alongside me… so it’s two-on-two.”
AGREED. See you at the debate, Michelle.
“No, I changed my mind. I want a second AND a third… so it’s three-on-three… ”
FINE BY ME. See you in February, Michelle.
And on on and on, ending with Rhee’s ultimate confirmation of her participation…
Until Rhee finally reversed herself and said, “Ehhh, I ain’t goin’ after all, and I ain’t given anyone a reason, either.”
What a joke!
LikeLike
Mr. Ratner,
If you don’t want to get your own blog, then consider getting a life . . . . .
And make sure you admonish the person or people who are holding the loaded gun next to your temple, forcing you to read this blog.
You poor, tortured soul, Andrew.
Certainly, you have the potential to have more profundity than a container of Kozy Shack pudding.
LikeLike
Andrew,
In order to have an “honest discussion” about education, you should probably avoid engaging in arguments of shame in order to prove a point (your authority on the matter?).
Model constructive and honest discussions with your commentary if you hope to achieve it in others.
LikeLike
It looks like the Andrew Ratner from City College of NY angling for more work on the payroll of corporate education “reform.” See his earliest Publications here: http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/profiles/Andrew-Ratner.cfm
LikeLike
Ratner, A. R. and Shiels, S. (2008) Thinking and Writing Benchmark Administration and Norming Guide. Prepared for KIPP Foundation.
Ratner, A. R. and Shiels, S. (2007) Thinking and Writing Benchmark Data Summary. Prepared for KIPP Foundation.
Ratner, A. R. (2007) The KIPP Writing and Thinking Benchmark Assessments. Prepared for the KIPP foundation.
LikeLike
The intervention is very selective:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/24422256-418/ed-secretary-duncan-dodges-hot-topic-of-charter-schools-during-chicago-visit.html
“The education secretary however dodged questions on a local hot topic, charter schools. Asked what he thought of CPS’ proposal to open 21 new charters after closing more the 52 regular schools, Duncan said he’s for anything that will improve results for students, but that the proportion of charters to regular schools was a local issue he has no control over.”
Is there an example of Duncan intervening on behalf of existing public schools? Public schools haven’t fared very well under his watch. I know he made a statement about the public school funding crisis in Philadelphia but it was my understanding he had to be asked to do that by public ed advocates.
The secretary should look up the definition of the word “agnostic”. Words have meaning.
LikeLike
Meddle? Too kind a word. I have another.
LikeLike
This is funny. 🙂
LikeLike
“If Dr. Ravitch pitches the word “meddle” that is certainly “connotative” and “agonistic” rhetorically but it is not improper given the discourse of this blog.”
I would describe her use of the word meddle, and the question that surrounds it, as
“puerile” and oddly “patronizing” at the same time. We need mature conversations about common core, educational policy etc.
LikeLike
We’ve had plenty of discussions about common core, educational policy etc. Where were you? Diane, apparently, can handle multiple issues at the same time.
BTW, are you seriously saying that Arne Duncan trying to tell de Blasio who not to pick isn’t worth discussing?
You sound like those people who say that gay marriage should wait until the budget issues are all worked out.
LikeLike
When Arne Duncan does it isn’t strong-arming or blackmail — oops, I mean meddling.
LikeLike
You’re preaching about maturity? Have you read your past rants and rages? Seriously….pot calling kettle. Look in the mirror Andrew.
LikeLike
Is this an example of a mature conversation, Andrew?
Hold yourself to the same standard.
Andrew Ratner
November 19, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Here, yet again, you reduce the whole of educational reform to “kids” vs. “tests”. You are a smart woman, Diane, so I can only assume that you understand this is a false dichotomy.
Why then do you continue to peddle this reductive nonsense?
As for me, I spend my days working hard -very hard – to prepare teachers to prepare their kids to read relatively complex, authentic non-fiction texts and write credible arguments on issues broached in these texts. That’s how I “care about kids and the future of our society” these days. Who knows? Maybe in a few years they will even read Reign of Error and recognize how little it has to offer us on how to reform the American education system so that it adequately and equitably serves children.
In May, the students will take a”high-stakes” test that assess their skill at writing argumentative essays after reading a group of non-fiction texts related to a debatable issue. The teachers and administration are overwhelmed and frustrated by the challenge of preparing their students for it. The kids are way behind. So much to learn so little time. Too many cops and metal detectors in the school. Not enough support or accommodations for ELLs and special needs students. The test itself is flawed and overly ambitious. The easiest thing would be to write books and hold lectures that document every miscalculation and misdeed of the “reformers”, every flaw of the current systems of assessments and student/teacher evaluation. I have plenty of “insider” knowledge to take this angle if I wanted to. But I don’t want to. Why? Because I believe that preparing teachers to prepare kids – all kids – to read and write complex texts about complex ideas is a fundamentally good thing. Despite obvious flaws, the Common Core and Common Core aligned assessments have the potential to raise the level of teaching and learning across a broad spectrum of schools. In disparate school settings, I see signs of this change as I observe, confer and plan with teachers. So, instead of hawking books and indiscriminately denouncing “reformers” , I choose to spend my time getting behind the better elements of the current reforms and helping teachers work through the discomfort that always comes with substantive change.
LikeLike
Let Mr. Ratner teach in a public school for years on end with low income students and undergo the APPR system we have now. . . . better yet, let’s impose this same exact system on him and his students at the college level and at the college he teachers in now.
Then let’s see how Ratner reacts.
I am an alumnus of CUNY at Queens College, and I can’t believe the system allows for such an appalling lack of academic depth that Andrew Ratner has to offer.
Ratner should be speaking out against the junk science driving APPR and tying test scores to employability. Maybe an in-depth analysis should be conducted to see how well Ratner’s students do academically from year to year, how long they take to complete their programs, and how employed they are after graduating from his coursework. Let’s rate his evaluation on exactly that . . . .
Sooner or later, the tempting cheese RAT-ner is offering the public will be the very cheese oozing out of his mouth as the hammer on the spring loaded rodent trap comes slamming down upon his reform-backed research . . . . .
It would be fascinating to find out what people like Robert Vago, Herb Seliger, and Elaine Klein think . . . .
LikeLike
Regardless of how effective their literacy program might be, I think that any educator who gets behind KIPP, with their militaristic approach, and considers them to be one of “the better elements of the current reforms” needs to seriously engage in self-reflection and re-evaluate their definition of child abuse. This guy is a disgrace to Teacher Education.
LikeLike
Read my responses carefully. You’ll see that I never said that these issues are not worth discussing. Of course they are. My desire is that we discuss them openly and fairly.
LikeLike
I guess it’s “not fair” to have an opinion that is different from that of Messers Ratner and South Carolina. Poor things!
LikeLike
Please don’t be beastly to Arne Duncan.
LikeLike
Andrew,
First, I appreciate that you use your real name here. Many don’t and I understand why but to discuss things “openly” I would begin with the caveat that a poster let’s everyone know who they are (or at least what they choose to let other people know about them as a “real” person). If you’ve read my posts, I think it’s quite easy to figure out who I am, where I live, my positions on the edudeformer movement, etc. . . .
Now maybe that last statement using edudeformer isn’t “fair” but that is how I view the vast majority of these folks, who have never taught for an appreciable amount of time, attempting to tell us professionals what we should be doing. But not only that but to disregard plain simple logic that shows that their deforming agenda is so invalid that it takes a complete suspension of logical thinking to lend even the tiniest bit of credence to their arguments.
Now, Andrew, should I “suspend my logical thinking” in order to supposedly “discuss them openly and frankly” and not step on someone’s feelings when what is being discussed has been proven to be so illogical, ludicrous and risible???
LikeLike
lets not let’s, AY AY AY, mi culpa.
LikeLike
Andrew Ratner , you claim, “My desire is that we discuss them openly and fairly.”
But, in all this time you haven’t addressed the issue under discussion. Your endless plaint is that you don’t like the fact that the discussion has already started, with a clear statement of somebody else’s opinion.
If you have grounds to disagree with the framing of Diane’s headline, you can proceed thus: you would say, “Of course Arne Duncan should “meddle” in “local affairs”…”
And then, I suppose you can explain that Arne has a legitimate interest, as an appointed member of the federal executive branch, in assuring that local appointees are supportive of his demands. His job is to assure voluntary compliance in his federally backed expansion of corporate domination of New York City public schools, after all. You could argue that his participation is just due diligence, in defense of the small army of cronies and toadies Bloomberg installed.
Go right ahead.
LikeLike
This is fascinating — at least to me! I was at Citizens Union as editor of Gotham Gazette at this time. I was invited to the mtg with Bloomberg but didn’t attend because it was off the record and I didn’t think I could control myself if something juicy happened (also I know I’d be blamed if anything leaked out of the proceedings).
Anyway it seemed odd that a good government group would endorse the current rules for the Panel on Education Policy — if you’re gung-ho for mayoral control just do away with it; if you want checks and balances then give it some teeth. I assumed Dick Dadey, not exactly known for speaking truth to power, simply caved to Bloomberg but it’s very interesting to read of Duncan’s role.
LikeLike
The ‘know-it-all’, ‘full speed ahead’ CEO mentality is inflexibly pervasive and a ‘damn shame’ behavior used by public policy makers both unelected (Duncan) and elected (Obama, Bush, Bloomberg…) who need(ed) to be reformed themselves.They appear to have no sense that they could possibly be wrong, or have willingness to envision policies for outcomes other than what their tunnel vision depicts.
LikeLike
“. . . both unelected. . . ”
You mean like district superintendents (especially those Toad accredited ones, oops I mean Broad, sorry) or building principals???
LikeLike
Strike two Mayor deBlasio! Three strikes and your character will be revealed!
LikeLike
Back on the original topic– I am not surprised that a Sec’y of a gov agency lobbies for his political viewpoint with a big-city mayoral candidate. That it would be the Sec’y of the DOE trying to influence the selection of the NYC Chancellor of Schools is what’s significant. I don’t think we’ve seen national politicization of local education on the present scale since the civil rights confrontations of the early ’60s. I really don’t think they could accomplish this level of intervention if they were not disingenuously using the civil rights issue [the ‘achievement gap’; US PISA scores pulled down by ‘disadvantaged’ students] to cloak their neoliberal privatizing power grab.
Nevertheless, Duncan may have shot himself in the foot on this one. He was probably simply punishing Starr, who operates within the DC region, for coming out against him with his recent ‘3-yr moratorium’ remarks. But meanwhile on the ground, judging from the comment thread on a 1-y.o. Strauss column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2012/12/24/nonsense-about-superintendent-joshua-starr/), Starr is criticized for (1)both in Stamford & MCPS, ‘narrowing the achievement gap’ by eliminating challenging curriculum for high performers (who often then leave the ps system), and (2)Executing w/o protest the previous super’s contract w/Pearson: MCPS uses Pearson Curriculum 2.0 & administers Pearson assessments 3 times per year in every grade. Perhaps Farina was the better choice.
LikeLike
No one has to listen to Duncan. Bill did not call Diane, who is a consultant to the Mayor.
Duncan is a stooge. Someone else got to Bill. Really concerned with his choice by default.
LikeLike
Yeah, no one who doesn’t need federal funding needs to listen to Duncan.
LikeLike
Not necessarily, Dienne. I am sure there is a complex web of favors being exchanged in the name of ed reform.
LikeLike
I don’t think this is a “choice by default”, joseph. Just because Duncan lobbied doesn’t necessarily mean anybody listened to him at all.
LikeLike
There is something in this conversation reminding me of all those old warnings about not getting “in trouble” back before Enovid. It takes a willingness on both sides…
LikeLike
I guess neither South Carolina nor A. Ratner have facts or law on their side, and so are “pounding the table”.
“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
LikeLike
You mean this Andrew Ratner, paid KIPP researcher?
http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/profiles/Andrew-Ratner.cfm
LikeLike
Do we possibly smell a Rat (ner) here?
LikeLike
All I can do is shake my head. Politics over common sense. If Farina turns into another Henderson or a puppet like Byrd-Bennett, educators and parents who are also Democrats may be lining up at their local Bd of Elections to change their party affiliation. I know I will.
LikeLike
Duncan’s is “meddling” in a clearly local decision outside the purview of the USDOE. I’m sure it is not the first time nor will it be the last; it just became public this time. HE GOT CAUGHT. To try to change the direction of the discussion by focusing on this apparently highly offensive term rather than the substance of Duncan’s actions is silly. Is “silly” too offensive?
LikeLike
“Meddling” is a highly offensive term, but character assassination of Diane Ravitch is not, at least not in the upside-down universe of of the KIPP educational system and its spokespeople, who find it perfectly all right to have a policy of putting five-year olds in solitary confinement in padded cells.
LikeLike
I suppose City University got a nice chunk of that grant money from KIPP, isn’t that the way it works?
LikeLike
http://www.kipp.org/about-kipp/the-kipp-foundation/national-partners
LikeLike
The money given to Kipp is astounding. Sixty million from the Walton Foundation alone. The idle rich have way too much money
LikeLike
Oh, but look at all the good they can do for the poor because they have all this money! As one beloved commenter around here put it, the irony of “A Christmas Carol” is that it was because of Scrooge’s miserly ways that he had the money to help Tiny Tim and his family in the end (apologies to the aforementioned commenter – that was a paraphrase, sorry if I didn’t get it exactly right).
In case it isn’t obvious, I’m being sarcastic. But, sadly, that’s the way the “trickle-down” folks actually think. The idea that if the rich didn’t hog the money in the first place there wouldn’t be a need for their benevolence doesn’t seem to occur to them.
LikeLike
These insights lead us back to Orwell, and the “Potato Famine.”
Here is how. The classic (Alastair Sim) version of “A Christmas Carol” has been a family tradition with us for more than a generation. It does it best.
But the best analysis of Dickens’s noisome version of reality was done by George Orwell in his essay on Dickens. Orwell points out that Dickens was guilty of a sentimental petit bourgeois “radicalism” that was actually a buttress to the Empire. As our colleagues points out, in order to be the generous boss who emerges in the end, Scrooge has to spend his life as a ruthless plutocrat, exploiting hundreds (thousands) like the debtor who pleads with Scrooge to spare him from debtor’s prison earlier in the story. The Cratchitt family would have been better served by a minimum wage law, a union for clerks (which is delightfully pronounced “clarks” in the movie), and universal health insurance. Tiny Tim’s medical problem is only a problem because Victorian and pre-Victorian England were so enraptured with the Utilitarian versions of reality and the gospel of free markets (which are always preached by nations with powerful navies — and today drones — to those without such claws of power).
Dickens wrote against revolution in several novels (sentimentally in “A Tale Of Two Cities,” viciously in “Barnaby Rudge”) and barely came to a critique of the hypocrisy of his contemporary version of capitalism in “Hard Times.” The decision of British officials to starve the Irish in the name of free market capitalism is to this day the signal example of how ideology did its most vicious work against the imperial victims — and is more signal because the victims of empire were in the first English colony and were “white.”
LikeLike
I think, as I expressed yesterday, that because they are in the same political party, Arne feels he has a duty and an ear for advising on who are the “right” people. As long as Democrats float along OK with Arne, those kinds of back and forth influences will go on. That’s how the parties work, from what I know. The real question is: what do Democrats want for public schools? I think it’s not a unified answer.
And whether he stepped over boundaries would typically be pointed out by the opposing party but because Arne supports exactly what radical Republicans want with public education, it slides.
But this is a Democrat issue at the core. Will the real Democrats please step forward?
LikeLike
The New York result shows voters are ready for some real Democrats to step forward.
December 26, 2013
“Today CNN/Opinion Research made headlines by releasing a poll which showed Republicans with a five-point lead on the generic congressional ballot over Democrats. ”
http://www.examiner.com/article/a-closer-look-at-cnn-s-most-recent-generic-ballot
The Examiner points out that an average of the “generic” preference polls during that period shows a tie, but still …
The moral is, don’t run as a generic Democrat (or Republican) at this point, and Corporate Education Reform is one big reason why. Can Billary still hope for the support of their machine, anyway? At least, hanging onto DeBlasio’s coat tails, she can run to the left of Jeb Bush.
LikeLike
Hillary is to the left of Jeb Bush? :-0
I had no idea.
LikeLike
Loaded terms for me but not for thee — “Puerile” and “oddly patronizing” are hands down more loaded than “meddle”. But I guess any criticism at all of Arne Duncan is too strong for the thin-skinned shrinking violets, Andrew R. and South Carolina.
LikeLike
Harold: perhaps we are incorrectly “deconstructing” the “informational texts” of SC Math Teacher and Andrew Ratner and putting them in an inappropriate “context.”
They’re simply using their oh so sly wit to provide us all with belly laughs so strong that they’re painful. For example, if you next read comments by them about another posting today, “Mercedes Schneider Eviscerates Fordham Grading System,” in the vein that the wording of the title evinces a clear and present danger that Diane Ravitch wants to literally disembowel her former colleagues at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (“Advancing Educational Excellence”) because she is so furious at being unable to respond to the power of their logic and the soundness of their facts—
They’re just putting us on! It’s a giant joke! After all, this blog is entitled “Diane Ravitch’s Blog” — not even the simplest soul on the world wide web could or would misunderstand that she is expressing her own opinions in her own way on topics of her own choosing.
Otherwise, you’re implying that the above mentioned commenters are doing themselves and their POV a tremendous disservice.
I’m going with comedy tag—there is a 98% ‘satisfactory’ [thank you, Bill Gates!] certainty that I am right—or at least that within the next ten years I will find out if I’m right [thank you again, Bill Gates!].
😉
P.S. Ok, ok, Señor Swacker, maybe I’ve had a little too much holiday cheer down at Pink Slip Bar & Grille and right now the quality of my thinking is a lot lower than the quantity of my words. But a little review of Wilson should set me straight…
😎
LikeLike
I think you are on to something, Krazy TA.
When you think you are being backed by people who are too big to fail, you feel you can act like anything goes in the arguing line. It’s called signaling incompetence.
LikeLike
Arne is for Common Core. Bill and Melinda Gates are for CCSS. So are the Obamas.
They want y’all to teach it to other people’s kids. Not theirs. The Gateses and Obamas send their kids to non-CCSS private schools. The Duncans elected to live in VA, and send their kids to non-CCSS-adopting public schools.
LikeLike
Despite the various statutes passed to prohibit federal meddling in state education affairs, federal interference in state education policy goes way back to the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (and maybe even earlier?). Back then, advocates of the NDEA contended that they were not interfering with the fundamental principle that states and local communities were responsible for the conduct of American schooling and institutions of higher education. Prescient opponents, however, maintained — rightly so — that federal aid would shape educational policy and would place the federal government in charge. What we need now is for Congress and/or the Attorney General’s Office to enforce those “statutes of prohibition.” They need to clearly and unambiguously punish Arne Duncan’s egregious behavior in this and all other cases.
LikeLike
Another thought… Given that Arne Duncan clearly is not beyond acting above the law (guess he gave himself a waiver), and clearly exerted pressure on Bill DeBlasio, imagine the conversations he has had (and is having and will continue to have) with King and Tisch, etc….
LikeLike