Paul Thomas of Furman University writes that he has a new perspective about social media. He used to get into heated debates on Twitter with “reformers,” arguing about their ideas and practices. But now he says he won’t do it anymore. He believes that when you debate a proposition, you legitimate the other side. If someone says “poverty doesn’t matter,” why debate such a silly statement?
Peter Greene disagrees with Thomas; he says we must engage because the public needs to be informed. He is unwilling to let error and misguided opinion shape public policy about public education.
Thomas writes that public policy in education has been dominated in recent years by non-educators:
Historically and significantly during the last three decades, U.S. public education policy and public discourse have been dominated by politicians, political appointees, billionaire hobbyists, pundits, and self-appointed entrepreneurs—most of whom having no or little experience or expertise in the field of education or education scholarship….
Over about two years of blogging at my own site and engaging regularly on Twitter and other social media platforms, I have gradually adopted a stance that I do not truck with those who are disproportionately dominating the field of and public discourse about education.
Yes, I have done my share of calling out, discrediting, and arguing with, but except on rare occasions, I am done with that. Those who have tried to include me in the “@” wars on Twitter may have noticed my silence when the other side is added.
Each time we invoke their names, their flawed ideas, or their policies, we are joining the tables they have set….
Peter Greene says, this is our house, and we should not let the entrepreneurs set the table or own it.
I agree with Peter. We cannot allow public education policy to be shaped without regard to facts, evidence, or experience. Peter gives the example of Common Core: for a long time, reformers claimed that CC was written by teachers. That claim was so thoroughly and frequently debunked that one seldom hears it anymore (now we hear that it was written by the narion’s governors…as if).
Like Paul, I have argued with “reformers” on Twitter. Almost always, it is a fruitless exercise. I can’t convince them, they can’t convince me, not with 140 characters, not with essays or even books. Yes, we must build solidarity.
But I am still a believer in the value of marshaling facts and evidence to prove that the test-based accountability, the teacher-bashing, and privatization schemes now promoted by leading foundations and the U.S. Department of Education are harmful to our children and our society.
What do you think?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
First I have a question, before I tell what I think.
I do read the history of education and understand the gestalt enough to be licensed to teach and pass Praxis exams, etc. but I lose some of it in my head when I get back to the daily grind of teaching music, mothering, volunteering, laundry etc. . .
So first. . .was NCLB the first time legislation got involved in actual classroom practice, other than some of the special ed stuff and the integration involvement?
Can we all agree that legislators making mandates about what classroom practice and results will look like is them flexing a muscle they don’t have? They have the ability, but not the real knowledge behind it to make what they pass make any sense? Is that true?
Shouldn’t we limit what political positions (lawmakers) can mandate for our schooling? Shouldn’t we defer to state boards of ed and LEAs, without legislators being involved? Isn’t it time to draw that line?
LikeLike
Joanna,
You are a music teacher. If one of your students has parents who both achieved well in music training, has a musically inclined household where music is valued, has a musical instrument at home and encourage my and time to practice then they will probably be apt. Imagine the oppositional scenario. Now imagine that the latter are housed in one facility. The former another. You teach half a day at one, half a day at another. Your Pearson created tests expose you as an ineffective teacher in one school, and a highly effective in another.
Now you are about to be fired for your poor test scores, but you protest. Someone explains that if you had surely tutored every night till ten for free, ignoring your own “mothering and volunteering” ( wow you have time for that!) your students at one school would not have been left behind.
Wait I know, you are going to answer with another “scratching my head” statement.
Oh please. Lol. In answer to the article: you laugh at them, while exposing their poor arguments.;)
LikeLike
I don’t understand this response at all. Maybe you posted it in the wrong spot?
yes, I am scratching my head.
I get that NCLB and RttT are a problem. I believe that. My question was isn’t it time to change that, and what were things like before?
LikeLike
I agree with an old saying I got from my mother whose mother’s family was Pennsylvania Dutch. “Convince a man against his will; he is of the same opinion still.” I found this out debating my conservative brother when we left the conversation with, “Let’s agree to disagree.”
LikeLike
isn’t the answer taking the ability to make mandates about schooling away from lawmakers (unless they are approached by a state board of ed to make such a law)? Aren’t they taking it too far all the time now? Isn’t that really what the problem is?
LikeLike
Joanna,
The problem is money not legislative restraint.
LikeLike
NJ Teacher,
what about the money? Isn’t the money being controlled by legislative restraints?
LikeLike
I can’t blame Paul Thomas for not engaging with folks who say, “poverty doesn’t matter”; the only people I’ve ever heard use that phrase are the education revanchists. And I would certainly agree that you can’t debate anything on Twitter. I use it primarily to alert folks (mostly my “followers”) to longer essays, stories, or reports. And, for what it’s worth, I too am a believer in facts and evidence….. –pm
LikeLike
It is worth listening to what you have to say…
LikeLike
Who do you consider to be the “education revanchists”? What “territory” are they trying to regain/reclaim?
LikeLike
The online arguments are not “about” convincing the opponent; that’s never going to happen. The purpose of such arguing is to not let their positions go unchallenged, to let the readers of the arguments recognize that the proponents of “reform” are just wrong, in pretty much all particulars, and just how damaging that wrongness is to education.
When ideology and greed takes the place of sound policy, there is no place for silence.
LikeLike
I agree. Flooding the comment sections lets the other readers know that there is an alternate strong view backed by evidence and logic. I never think I am going to convince the person with which I am arguing, but I may open the mind of someone who is reading the comments.
LikeLike
Even when I agree, the conversation often leads to these bizarre conspiracy theories and attributing ideas to things that I wind up being unable to support.
It becomes tiresome.
LikeLike
I fervently agree with DB. You won’t convince the “reformers,” no matter what, because of what Upton Sinclair observed:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
But assuming you’re not debating in a private soundproof room, there are onlookers, and they need to hear the credible challenge. Also, at times I’ve found it useful to show “reformers” when their arguments are so completely full of holes that they need to stop using them. (For example, there are still some “reformers” who claim Edison Schools, the once-hailed, now-long-fizzled for-profit operator, still exists and is still a success; and there are quite a few who heatedly dispute that KIPP schools have high attrition. Sometimes it’s worth it to show them those claims are so absurd that they’ll backfire.)
LikeLike
Or, needless to say, the “parent triggers have transformed many schools” howler.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with Peter as well. I think we should be careful, as Peter warns, not to elevate to attention people who are just attacking for the sake of gaining visibility.
I am in sympathy with Paul’s main point, that a bunch of disruptors have entered the education arena, and we ought not to dignify them by treating them as if they have earned the right to dictate policy. But the sad fact is that some of these actors have so much money that they have taken over our house, and are calling the shots.
And as Diane points out, there is a real battle going on regarding the facts — and the example she gives is an apt one. We have evidence on our side, and we need to continue to bring it to the public’s attention.
When the Gates Foundation asked me for a dialogue three years ago, some people warned me that by engaging in such a public back and forth, I would somehow lend them credibility. But I think that public process helped reveal their lack of understanding of the basic issues we face as educators.
The “reformers” already control the media, and are almost always the first people sought out for comment in reports about the issues. We need to challenge that hegemony in every forum we can, and especially on social media, where we have a bit more access and visibility.
LikeLike
Bringing evidence to the public’s attention is working. Debating the reformers is useless; we should be mocking their snake oil solutions with every chance we get. This was never a discussion or a debate – this was an invasion. We were never invited to sit at the table to talk policy, we were force fed from the only item on their menu: tests designed to fail, tests designed to disrupt, tests designed to conquer.
LikeLike
I agree.
It is a big mistake to “debate” people who are either woefully uninformed or simply dishonest because they can — and do — just make stuff up.
Whether they do it wittingly (dishonestly) or unwittingly (from ignorance) is irrelevant.
Educators debating ‘reformers” about VAMs and other junk is the equivalent of physicists “debating’ perpetual motion with someone who does not even know basic high school physics.
They can’t win because their debate opponents are not constrained by reality.
The reformers who make the equivalent of the perpetual motion claim once are worthy of respectful correction, but the ones who keep doing it are not.
LikeLike
I agree with you, Anthony. I so appreciate those who post who have collected the research and can cite it to advantage at the drop of a hat. I have integrated research into my practice but do not keep track of where it all came from. I may know that certain things have been studied but not who did it when. I have just used what worked and added it to my own repertoire. Having to defend my teaching with references to academic studies was and is beyond my interest or energy. We need the strong voices who can defend the profession with the facts. Your debate with the Gates Foundation really did highlight their lack of expertize.
LikeLike
Please keep up the debating. Those of us out here depend on all of you, Diane, Peter, Anthony and Paul (and so many others of you out there Mercedes, Lloyd, Nancy, Susan, etc. . . )to keep debating. It helps us to know that what we are saying is right and helps us to spread the word. I know it takes a lot of time and energy to keep arguing the same points but every time you do you help the rest of us convince those new to the discussion or those who are still making up their minds. The debate is not for the reformers – it is for the audience!
LikeLike
I agree. As an educator, the debates help keep me informed. Also, the mainstream media continue to repeat the false narrative without ever bothering to do their own research. Lazy, Faux Journalist Opinion miesters. I do understand Paul’s take on this, though. I think each has to follow their own feelings on this. I will continue to follow you all!
LikeLike
Perhaps we need to bring the facts to the grassroots instead of spending so much time on social media. All are valuable, but in fact, it’s the parents and teachers we need to reach.
LikeLike
I think parents are the most important allies we can have. They need to understand what is at stake, comprehensive education for their children. Parents must stand with teachers and fight for public schools. In fact, parents need to lead the charge, since teachers will be dismissed for having a vested interest.
LikeLike
Not all of us have that option. There are several states, including mine, where we are forbidden to talk to parents about many of these things. I talk to teachers all the time. Most are too exhausted to really do much.
LikeLike
I agree with Diane. Keep in mind that smart people can rationalize anything. And it’s easy for a good storyteller to invent a compelling narrative that just isn’t true. That’s why the “reformers” hire expensive PR operatives. The craftiest “reformers” will take the best arguments against bogus reform and either co-opt them and claim them for their own, or disarm them through rhetorical sleight of hand. (This is where the USDOE gets the gall to say that testing sucking the life out of the classroom.) If that fails, they will start another fake parent group.
What’s more, they will use our good arguments to sharpen their own weapons. If you’re a teacher and you’ve ever questioned an administrative decision or policy, you’ll know what I’m talking about. (Unless, of course, you work with administrators who only know how to use brute force.)
Opponents of the school reform madness always have to be ready for the next wave of counterattacks. Maybe it’s time to start studying The Art of War. Personally, I’d rather reread the War of Art.
LikeLike
i agree with joan. most parents and teachers are still completely unaware of the debate raging in the country. engage them where and how we can.
LikeLike
Articulating effective arguments that clarify assumptions and consequences are needed to help inform the ‘audience in between’ the extremes. I am continuously reminded that only a fraction of the population has really tuned in to the privatization of schools issues. People whom you would think would be informed aren’t. So, I follow debates and learn how people think even if I know that changing minds is not likely.
LikeLike
I’ll agree with Diane. The purpose of engaging reformists is not to convince them; it is to help inform those observing from the sidelines. I am sometimes alarmed at how uninformed many people are about the battle for public education – even among fellow teachers.
LikeLike
If I may modify your last statement: ” I am sometimes alarmed at how uninformed many people are about the battle for public education – ESPECIALLY among fellow teachers.”
LikeLike
Arguing gets no where. Probably, the best thing one can do is present a thorough stance, ask others to join with you. Disengage trolls by deleting them or not talking to them.
It is just like political or religious discussions…there is no way to get others to read what you stay unless they already agree with the title statement. They will attack without trying to comprehend. Or they will change the subject to divert to some criticism. It is pointless to talk to them. The only hope is to find those who haven’t yet thought about the topic at hand and to recruit them if they have interest.
We have all “been there” with trolls here…
LikeLike
Debate every chance we get; debate anyone anywhere at any time. Convincing the billionaires and their cronies is not our goal; we have to defend and represent the 99% whose kids are being abused by commercial testing and tech buys. As Diane and others say, the goal is showing the mass American audience why the private war on public schooling endangers kids, communities and our democracy. Reformies hide from the facts; they are “data-proof” as the late Gerald Bracey used to say. Let’s come out swinging with the story of what’s really going on–like the many reports Diane posts of charter thefts and failures–like the big issues being economic inequality and child poverty. Billionaires and their well-paid lieutenants in govt, unions, PTA’s,TFA, media and state departments of ed–get any and all of them onstage for a public debate and wipe up the floor with them–they know what a thrashing they’ll get, which is why media darling Michelle Rhee fled from debating Diane last year.
LikeLike
“Debate every chance we get; debate anyone anywhere at any time.”
Thoroughly agree with ira on that thought!!
LikeLike
Lemmi tell y’all a lil’ something
Re-form bunk you up
Re-form bunk you up
Re-form bunk you up
Re-form bunk you up uh
I said Re-form bunk you up
Re-form bunk you up
Re-form bunk you up
Re-form bunk you up
LikeLike
Look what the right wing think tanks do,.
take one idea and repeat it over and over.
that is the only way to get through to the crowd.
Dictators read Le Bon’s famous book on how crowds think.
We are not appealing to the group mentality, but the individual intellect.
Look at the latest effort, one simple idea, “Obama does not love this Country”
to prepare for the next election.
Our one idea to repeat over again might be:.
“All educational decisions should be local” (and include parents)
There, now everyone start posting that!
if you want to add “and I am not going to take it anymore”, fine.
LikeLike
I will no longer let people spout some ideological belief and lay it down as fact when it comes to my profession, any longer. If a doctor overheard someone telling a large group of people that smoking was perfectly fine, you bet they would say something. Teachers have an obligation to use their credentials/expertise to correct ignorance. It is perfectly logical to debate an ideologue to prevent them from spreading ignorance. I hate to say it, but I look down on teachers that do not take the time to do so. I look down on my own union for not taking the moral high ground, even if they are making tactical decisions. Sorry if that offends, but that is how I feel. I will not spend the rest of my career as a doormat.
LikeLike
That is perfectly fine. But it is pointless to argue. It spirals out of control.
LikeLike
Doesn’t spiral out of control if you lay it on the line with the other person such as telling them and all listening “I’ve already shown you what you are saying is wrong/false/a lie, in other words pure bullshit. Come up with better arguments if you want to continue the discussion.”
LikeLike
Appeal to parents to defend their own kids against testing abuse, to protect their own school taxes against the looting by Pearson and Amplify. The primary audience are parents who send their kids to school expecting good things to happen and who send their school taxes to districts expecting good purchases for their kids. Let the parents know a great scam is underway coast-to-coast, from school boards to the White House, from kindergarten to high school.
LikeLike
I’m fine with it spiraling. At least the onlookers will know their is another side to the story.
I’ll offer this as well. I sometimes notice “reformers” debating in circles when it is of no benefit to them. I often suspect they are practicing. Engaging ideologues can tell you just how knowledgeable you really are. If your ultimate goal is to defeat their narrative, then you’ll need to sharpen your sword. That takes time, research and practice.
LikeLike
“Engaging ideologues can tell you just how knowledgeable you really are. If your ultimate goal is to defeat their narrative, then you’ll need to sharpen your sword. That takes time, research and practice.”
Exactamente, Bill.
LikeLike
Am I wrong, or are there lots of new names adding their voice to this discussion?
Thank you Diane!
LikeLike
It is extremely important to let people know what is happening in education. For example, I don’t think the average citizen realizes that his local school can now be privatized. He doesn’t realize that an individual or an organization can come in, take over the school, collect all the school tax money and then make all decisions and keep the profits. Once that happens, the citizen no longer has any say in the governance of the school; his only role will be to continue to pay taxes. Yes, taxation without representation.
So it is important to get the message out in any way we can and that includes debating the people who spout educational nonsense (e.g. poverty doesn’t affect learning).
As for charter schools, they are a great idea if you have the money to start one (also called private schools). Public schools belong to the public and I am one citizen who will fight to prevent my neighborhood school from being given to private individuals or corporations.
LikeLike
Don’t forget that the Charter company then also owns the building paid for with our tax dollars under the guise of “rent”. No longer does the public own the building. Robbery of our tax dollars. Even if you don’t have children in school, you still pay taxes. We all have a stake in this. Keep the information coming, I don’t care how…just keep talking.
LikeLike
I think the correct position here is “it depends.” As individuals we have all felt these same frustrations and asked these same questions. This is exactly why “our side” needs to get ourselves better organized. One of the myths of social media is that all opinions are equal, and they’re not. I recognize several “heavy hitters” in this conversation in addition to Diane, mostly because I’ve read their other writings (not just online–actual books, in some cases!); others I’m not familiar with, but maybe over time I will be. Some folks, like Diane, have the time and opportunity to travel and speak, while others of us are more tied down by work and family. I admire Peter Greene (and others) for reading a lot of reports so the rest of us don’t have to since we don’t have the time anyway. NPE seems like one avenue for organization. Fighting the good fight within the AFT and NEA structures is also essential. (BTW, whatever happened with SOS?) United Opt Out is also an option, and we do know that we have to unite with parents as much as possible.
I would suggest, though, that as long as we are fighting on the single issue of defending public education, we are always going to be in trouble. It’s not enough to say that “education is a public trust” when all around us the public domain is dissolving and any hope of a middle class lifestyle is dissolving with it. At the end of the day, power is what matters, not reasoned discussion. In order to save public education, we have to turn this country around, and to do that, we must organize on a whole different level.
LikeLike
bradinsocal,
“At the end of the day, power is what matters, not reasoned discussion. In order to save public education, we have to turn this country around, and to do that, we must organize on a whole different level.”
I agree that the talk must be taken to a different level.
I would substitute “authority” (as in legal authority) for the word “power”. Someone may have authority over me legally speaking but they don’t have the power to change me. I can choose to refuse their authority (and that may be very costly to me, at least it has been in the past) but I refuse to accede to them the power over me.
LikeLike
I agree with Peter Greene, We must engage them, but not on their terms. If we allow the reformers to pick the battle field and write the rules, they will gain the advantage.
Instead, I think we must engage them where and when we want and attack their message every chance we get on every forum in Social Media. They don’t need to show up—and they probably won’t because they have no defense beyond their propaganda and misleading cherry picked facts that are fraudulent and false and designed to fool as many people as possible for as long as it takes.
For instance, if Rahm Emanuel is re-elected in Chicago, it will be becasue enough voters were fooled for him to win and to fool them, the oligarchs will pump a huge amount of cash into his campaign to pay for all the lies. I think the only way to beat him is through grass roots door to door canvasing and a social media blitz that doesn’t let up.
To win, Chicago must be the next Newark. Maybe Ras Baraka should come to Chicago to help campaign to unseat Rahm, and Chicago should look at what Baraka’s people did to pull off their victory in Newark and emulate it.
LikeLike
I agree with you, Lloyd…….it is absolutely necessary to attack…particularly editorial pages like the New York Times and the St. Louis Post Dispatch………..often disparaged automatically by conservatives, which gives them a holier than thou attitude……they do not appreciate being challenged by people with liberal views more focused and documented than what they present…….they cover a broad range of subjects, which causes them to take too much for granted. In education, there is a lot of “how dare you” from some very arrogant people even on very basic issues. They put a great deal of value on simplicity—-they need it to cover that broad range of subjects.
LikeLike
Caroline Grannan: yes, we need to remember the “onlookers.”
anthonycody2013: yes, we need to challenge their hegemony.
laurencoodley: yes, we need to supply information to the unaware.
Sue Legg: yes, we mustn’t forget the “audience in between.”
Alan: yes, we need to inform the uninformed.
Linda: yes, people need to know what is happening.
Lloyd Lofthouse: yes, engage them on our terms aka in fair and open forums. And that leads me to—
ira shor: you hit the center of the bullseye. The likes of Michelle Rhee and David Coleman flee posthaste from open and public discussion and/or debates from folks like Diane Ravitch because there is a fundamental flaw in the whole corporate education reform movement—
They are promoting, mandating, and selling a business plan that masquerades as an education model. Like the vampires of fiction it can’t stand the sunlight of scrutiny and transparency.
They loathe and fear genuine engagement with those for a “better education for all” because they do not believe in the power of their ideas. *Remember: they have had the owner of this blog on panels with a moderator and as many as three (or four if I remember correctly) other participants [all rheephormistas] stacked against her. This is what fear looks like.*
They look to and rely on political connections and fabulous wealth and forced silence and intimidation and punishment because that’s all they’ve got.
I again make this suggestion: have a 8- or 10-member panel on self-styled “education reform” and its alternatives at the upcoming NPE conference. Let the rheephormistas have half the seats, and a mutually agreed upon moderator if necessary. On 4 of 8 seats, let’s say, I would simply have big placards with names on them like ARNE DUNCAN and CAMI ANDERSON and JOHN KING and BILL GATES [a poll could be taken to see who people favored most to sit in the rheephorm seats].
And I mean let the NPE publicly commit to a civil and fair and balanced. They are capable of honoring such a commitment.
They won’t show. They can’t show. No more than the segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s would have shown up to such a event then. Or the way that pro-war in Vietnam folks shunned teach-ins and the like because they couldn’t, literally, make a case [I speak from personal experience]. But, funny enough, it would be worse for them if they DID SHOW UP!
😏
Because in the end, it’s not about the edupreneurs and educrats and accountabully underlings—they have proven themselves, with rare exceptions, to be incapable of thoughtful self-correction based on facts and logic.
It’s about everyone else. Riffing off of ira shor, the rheephormistas flee from genuine discussion because they remember THE WIZARD OF OZ. In their controlled forums and sales meetings and product launchings they project this image to 99% of the population: “I am Oz…the great and powerful!” Put them in any situation where they have to put up or shut up, thereby eviscerating any claim they have to being factually or logically or morally correct, and all they would be left with is—
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The Great Oz has spoken!”
Engaging them directly? Of course they commit Rhee Flees! That’s pulling the curtain aside so all and sundry can see what the great and powerful edumiracle wizards really are.
When it comes to morals and logic and decency—They’re not great. They’re not powerful. And in fact, they’re not even edumiracle wizards but rather the Wicked…
I assume y’all get my drift.
😎
LikeLike
I like the idea of having a panel with eight seats and an unbiased moderator—four for the corporate reformers and four for pro-public education. Publicize the event heavily through social media for—-lets say—-six months and repeatedly invite four to step forward from a list of the most well known corporate reformers and then hold the debate even if they don’t respond and/or show up.
Along the way, we repeat the invitation as often as possible for four of the major corporate reformers to join in this televised, broadcast and recorded, public debate. We also report when and if no one on the reform side responds to the invitation.
When the debate take place, do we leave those four seats empty or fill them with unbiased devils advocates recruited from members of award winning debate societies who will be asked to study the evidence that the reform movement uses to support their agenda and then defend it to the best of their ability.
Instead of an agreed upon list of questions, we allow each side to ask five to ten questions of the other side and provide a limited amount of time to respond and rebut.
LikeLike
Political arguments about who benefits (Pearson, reform hucksters, etc.) are the most powerful arguments.
These arguments are directed against anti-teacher Democrats. Public schools are democratic institutions that reflect the better side of our society, while the reform hucksters and profiteers are trying to destroy these institutions. So the argument has to be, “On education, Cuomo and Emanuel are the same as Jindal and Walker.”
Teachers need only to be more persuasive on education than those guys. Those guys got elected, but that does not mean that the public trusts them on education. They are just opportunists and bullies.
Technical debate is necessary.
We need the simplest ways of showing how measurements of students (or teachers) vary or fail to correlate for no good reason, or how models fail to include factors that must be considered. Obama and some other elite Democrats are partly won over by technical wizardry by Chetty and others. We need to make the simplest technical arguments and to repeat them over and over.
Diane, you have been outstanding in making both these kinds of arguments.
**One problem is that it is hard to make technical arguments that do not include some assumptions about the aims of education or the value of different educational practices. Otherwise, technical arguments end up almost entirely mathematical.**
Part of the debate I’d like to have is about the aims of education and the value of art and music education, as well as science education that asks students to learn deeply. Sadly, when I make such arguments with colleagues, friends, and relatives, this gets blank looks, even from teachers. Talking like a teacher does not work, at least not in my experience. The normal assumption is that the only way to improve something is by measuring it, and by correcting whatever does not measure up. So one cannot challenge the assumption that this serves a purpose. Many people just want to believe it does, and dismiss any questioning of this assumption as self-serving.
Also, all these arguments are pointless for Republicans. They care about different things, like local control. Technical arguments do not matter for Republican elites. Also Republicans hate teachers unions and believe in privatization.
LikeLike
Confront them at every juncture until it becomes a habit, a reflex.
LikeLike
I believe Diane offered to debate one well known reformer in a traditional manner, but the reformer initially agreed, but then had some reason or other why she couldn’t debate.
LikeLike
I’ve been reading “Difficult Conversations” by the Harvard Mediation Team, and I think we need to continue engagement with better tools.
LikeLike
We should be making fun of them, which is one of the reasons Greene’s blog is so good.
LikeLike
“Jabbertalky” (apologies to Lewis Carrol)
The billionaires with the usual names
Did lie and dissemble in the press:
All flimsy were Reformer claims,
And the charter rats did nest.
‘Beware the Jabbertalk, my son!
The laws that bite, the Cores that catch!
Beware the Coleman bird, and shun
The felonious charters, natch!’
He took the parents’ word in hand:
Long time the testing foe he sought —
So rested he by the Knowledge Tree,
And stood a while in thought.
And, as in dovish thought he stood,
The Jabbertalk, with test and VAM,
Came rifling through the teaching wood,
And burbled as it came!
One two! One two! And through and through
The Opt-out blade went snicker-snack!
He left test dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
‘And hast thou slain the Jabbertalk?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’
He chortled in his joy.
The billionaires with the usual names
Did lie and dissemble in the press:
All flimsy were Reformer claims,
And the charter rats did nest.
LikeLike
Sounds of clapping and whistling!
LikeLike
Outstanding!
LikeLike
The problem is also that most politically motivated people use social media not to discourse but to push their agenda. Pew’s recent survey on political polarization and media habits (http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/) found that stovepiping of ideas on social media was very common, especially among the ideologically certain.
Maybe, what’s needed is a platform that is accessed by more than the “convinced” which can cut through the ideological blinders and attract a diverse audience. Breaking through stereotypes in this manner (especially regarding teachers’ unions and the supposed “crisis” in education) would be particularly important.
However, the forms of social media that are used for the platforms to inform policymakers of specific positions should still be used to ensure that they understand the message.
LikeLike
You don’t debate compulsive liars; you expose them.
LikeLike
Ellen Brown exposed one part of the greed this week at Truthout, “Swimming with the Sharks…Goldman Sachs …Schools”.
LikeLike