You may recall a post about a disillusioned reformer, Jorge Cabrera, in Bridgeport, Connecticut,who quit “the movement.”
EduShyster located him and interviewed him about his life in the movement and his reasons for leaving.
Here is her last question and his answer:
“EduShyster: Last question. Do you think it may be necessary to burn the education reform movement in order to save it?
“Cabrera: At this point I would say yes. It makes me a little sad to say that because I definitely know people in the movement who have good motives. I think the education reform movement needs to be challenged, first of all, about the definition of reform. Right now all it seems to mean is charter schools. And that’s not the solution.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
Cabrera’s insights are valuable because he had a window into the workings of the privatization movement. As he notes, the good intentions of the earlier reformers have been lost. The new people in charge want an all out war with public schools, I would maintain because the corporate reformers are now leading the charge. They resent paying for public schools, and they want to offer a cheap, factory model of education to the poor and working class. They have no viable answers for improving public education. With the government providing them with incentives from the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act 2000 and the New market Tax Credits, corporations will continue their quest for tax write offs and profit. Greed is main motivator of the new “reformers.” Reverse the incentives, start regulating, and many of the corporations will lose interest.
LikeLike
I urge everyone that supports a “better education for all” to read the interview in its entirety.
One of many things that struck me: rheephorm rhetoric lauds 21st century skills and creative thinking and innovation and blahblahblah but in charter practice, e.g., severely constricting ideological and even corporeal conformity is a desirable (even praiseworthy) norm.
Consider the following:
[start answer]
EduShyster: You draw a sharp distinction between authentic community engagement and *selling* a prepackaged education reform product to the community. Can you give an example?
Cabrera: The charter revision campaign that would have put the Bridgeport schools under mayoral control is a perfect example. My first instinct was to go and get the language and see what the measure would actually do so that I could inform the public what a *yes* vote meant vs. a *no* vote. I was very quickly discouraged from doing that. A New York City communications firm, SKDKnickerbocker, was brought in to *facilitate* community conversations. The PR firm immediately moved into campaign mode, which meant coming up with slogans, nice fliers, t-shirts, direct mail pieces and radio spots to get people to vote yes. There was a total abdication of any kind of thoughtful analysis of what the yes vote would mean. We were pushed hard to sell this to people and get them to vote yes by telling them *it’s going to be good for schools, our kids are going to benefit,* but without any grounding in reality or real data.
[end answer]
I may get a rebuke from Mr. Lofthouse, but all that is missing is a version of Mao’s LITTLE RED BOOK, the fingers of “community organizers” stuck in at the last page they read [not allowed to remove the finger for showers or sleep], containing the rheephorm equivalents of “in order to play the piano, one must use all ten fingers.”
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
But not among the “thought leaders” of the self-styled “education reform” movement.
No, not when you remember how enamored they are of their hard data points, stuck like superglue to Marxist aphorisms like the following:
“My favourite poem is the one that starts ‘Thirty days hath September’ because it actually tells you something.”
From Groucho’s mouth to rheephorm ears…
😎
LikeLike
Well, small detail, I was the match-maker via Diane to EduShyster for this reformer confessional interview. But Bridgeport CT Ed reporter Linda Lambeck was the one who first gave Jorge a “voice” to the people.
LikeLike
gailj2, while your busy taking credit for who connected Jorge Cabrera to whomever, why don’t you also share you have made financial contributions to ConnCAN?
LikeLike
I am a former BOE member in Bridgeport, CT that has battled Excel Bridgeport, ConnCAN, Families for Excellent Schools, etc. repeatedly. Jorge Cabrera was discharged by Excel Bridgeport. It was only weeks after he was discharged that he had an apparent epiphany about the “deform movement.” What is even more absurd is his wife is a principal within the Bridgeport Public Schools. The very public school system he attempted to tear down so that there could be massive privatization under the watchful eye of Paul Vallas.
LikeLike