Nicholas Tampio seeks to understand why the Democratic Party abandoned public education.
Some part of the explanation, he believe, can be found in the leadership’s limited personal engagement with public schools.
“The key to understanding Obama’s education policy, according to Maranto and McShane, is his biography. Obama attended the prestigious Punahou School in Hawaii, an experience that prepared him for college and law school. Obama also observed from a distance a Hawaiian public school system rife with ethnic violence, low academic standards and an unresponsive bureaucracy. These experiences influenced Obama’s decision to send his daughters to Sidwell Friends, the elite Washington, D.C. institution whose alumni include the younger Albert Gore and Chelsea Clinton.
“As president, Obama has advocated reforms to the public education system that include upping merit pay, weakening tenure rules and evaluating teachers by student test scores. Obama’s most controversial education policy, however, was the Race to the Top program that gave states additional incentives to adopt the Common Core standards.”
“There is nothing wrong with private school. The problem here, though, is that too many Democratic elites advocate education reforms such as the Common Core standards, charter schools, and high-stakes testing with minimal first-hand knowledge of how they affect schools or children. In sending their children to private schools, Democratic elites exempt themselves from policies that they might oppose if they saw their own children being harmed by them.”

Sorry, but I’m calling baloney on the idea that Obama’s own educational experience or that of his daughters has anything to do with his educational policies. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Can you imagine Sidwell Friends being subjected to Common Core, PARCC, VAM, etc.? Can you imagine Obama sending his daughters there if they it was?
There is one and only one rea$on for Obama’$ educational policie$.
LikeLike
Okay, maybe I’m being too limited. Maybe money isn’t all there is to it. Let’s not forget power and control and being the smartest guy in the room.
LikeLike
Dienne,
I think he doesn’t think about schools. I think he delegated it and the reasons you list describe the people to whom he delegated education.
LikeLike
I don’t often disagree with you, but I kind of do here. Obama prides himself on being wonkier than his wonkiest wonks. He prides himself on knowing everything that’s going on and being actively involved. I don’t think he’s the delegating type, except to the extent of, this is exactly what I want you to do, now go do it. Duncan is not the problem; his boss is.
LikeLike
Involved Mom, I disagree Obama doesn’t think about schools, just delegates. He & close associates Rahm Emanuel and Arne Duncan all came out of a Chicago system greatly influenced by the neoliberal thinking of Milton Friedman and his ‘Chicago Boys’ (the ones who implemented Friedman’s ed design for the Chilean schools under Pinochet).
LikeLike
Ok. I will look to learn more about it. Thank you for commenting to me.
LikeLike
Dienne was right the first time. Obama is not oblivious. He knows exactly what is going on and is ultimately in control.
It’s all about the money. The lobbyists with the most cash set national policy–for both parties.
LikeLike
Bethree5,
Obama’s advisor Axelrod, is currently working at the University of Chicago, where free market bs reigns supreme.
LikeLike
Agree.
A mistake can be corrected. But, obscuring its cause isn’t usually, a promising first step … unless, politics is involved.
The message, “We’re ambitious politicians. We betrayed our nation b/c if we didn’t, other politicians would get all the cash”, is an explanation that doesn’t strike the right tone.
LikeLike
Obama explicates his education belief system as early as 2006 when he published his Audacity memoir. He describes therein doing exactly as he has done. Obviously this has been in the works with him, and his coterie, long before he announced his candidacy for Prez.
LikeLike
From what I’ve read, in Hawaii, the public schools are notoriously “bad”. There’s a giant well-endowed private school called Punahou (or something like that) that gives a free ride to talented poor kids. That’s where Obama went. It’s easy to imagine how Obama could have concluded that public schools are incompetent, that they cause poor kids’ failure (the causal arrow actually points the other way) and in need of private/charter secret sauce.
LikeLike
Okay, but why would he want either public schools or charter schools to look like what his policies have mandated? Slaves to the test, “no excuses discipline”, punish and control? That’s not what he experienced and it’s not what he’s subjected his daughters to, nor would he ever allow that. Why doesn’t he want schools for the rest of us to look like schools for his kids? Why shouldn’t Punahou or Sidwell Friends be the models for his “reforms”?
LikeLike
Dienne – That is the point I was trying to make. Obama could have tried to create great schools for all kids. Or, he could have advanced the neoliberal agenda of turning public schools into test-prep factories. The piece highlights how Obama, and other Democratic Party elites, have chosen the latter option, to disastrous effect.
Hopefully, we can revive Dewey’s great principle, that Diane cites in Reign of Error:
“What the best and wisest parent wants for his child, that must we want for all the children of the community. Anything less is unlovely, and left unchecked, destroys our democracy.”
LikeLike
Dienne,
His sister attended a Ford Foundation backed school in Indonesia. I think to him that’s what a charter school is so must not be bad. Again, I don’t think he thinks about the experiences of average children except that he thinks charters would solve it all.
LikeLike
Involved Mom I think you are being kind yet condescending to Obama in imputing to him the average guy’s tendency to base ideas about what’s good for everybody on personal anecdotes. He is a bigger thinker than that, & his ideas about national education reflect a neoliberal bent. I’m not saying he’s a neoliberal ideologue. Clearly his attempts nudge the country toward a national health system show that. I think he’s first and foremost a pragmatist who seeks to facilitate change where possible– where political viewpoints are coalescing. Though I think it deplorable that he jumped on the neoliberal ed-reform bandwagon, I suspect that his motivation was simply to move lousy public-ed for the poor off dead-center, & decided– w/the winds already blowing in that direction– to try it.
LikeLike
It must be remembered that we are talking about the Neo-Liberal Neo-Democrats here, which as far as that goes has abandoned the base of the party on more than just education issues.
LikeLike
Agree, Jon Awbrey. Except that I sadly can’t find that ‘base’ Democrat party anywhere. The base seems to have become neoliberal since Clinton, pushing the rest of us into what– the progressive camp? Jimmy Carter was the last populist Democrat. With the demise of the mfg/union sector, populism has been subsumed by the TeaPartiers. Progressivism is a difficult pill for this antique Democrat to swallow: once you eliminate mfg/union power & populism, all that’s left are good ideals with bad [top-down] implementation.
FWIW, by my lights neoliberalism is no different from Reaganist deregulation and trickle-downism, which I have always viewed as our gov’s pusillanimous sky-is-falling answer to global competition: the exhortation to those with power to grab what they can now from the shrinking pie, & to hell with everybody else.
LikeLike
I resisted the term neoliberal for a long time, thinking it was little more than deliberate obfuscation, but so long as we read it as corporate libertarianism, giving corporations a free hand, then it tells where the cloven hoof lies.
Yes, the party leadership is all but entirely detached from the base, but I got to know the dems in the ditches back when we tried to recall Snyder in Michigan, and they all hold the very same values that I’ve always known and loved.
LikeLike
John Awbrey, not sure why you resisted the term neoliberalism, but I agree corporate libertarianism is a good synonym. Glad you found real old Democrats during the effort to unseat Snyder. We still have some in the NJ legislature & they’re fighting the good fight against Christie. Unfortunately in NJ– at least this is how I analyze it as a relative newcomer (25 yrs)– similar to NYC– there was a long tradition of Tammany-style corrupt Democrats [still quite evident in the county legislatures], & the recent popularity in the state of conservatives like Christie reflects a backlash.
LikeLike
I recently sent this to Dianne Feinstein about the same subject. https://tultican.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/response-to-dianne-feinstein/
Maybe Obama is a particular case but I think most Democrats believe that testing results are telling them something real about quality of school and teaching. Because of that they support a massive testing program in the belief that they are protecting students from substandard education.
LikeLike
tultican,
….or, it’s a rationale that opens the politicians’ pockets to hedge fund and tech mogul campaign funds.
LikeLike
tuitican..I too often correspond with our California senior Senator…and she is firmly a supporter of charters and of CC testing. Her billionaire husband, Richard Bloom (a weapons manufacturer among his many enterprises) is appointed a Regent of the U. of California by our Dem Governor, and helps implement their policies. This has had great ramifications as to the one way, open door university policy, to the Chinese and other US economic competitors.
In California, which (until about 1979) had the greatest public education system from K – grad school, in the nation rivaling only NY state, with the precipitous decline since then, shows the combined result of less economic investment (as with Prop.13) and the influx of hoards of immigrants from many countries, the largest population increase in the nation, coupled with the redistribution of America’s wealth only upward to the 1%,
Billionaire Eli Broad jumped into the fray way before the other Dems and Obama/Duncan. He started his Broad Academy in 1999 and reviewing his mission statement, it is clear that he planned his onslaught, and worked his plan successfully, to this day. Now he is intent on rapidly taking over at least 50% of LAUSD public schools, and charterizing them…with the backing of other greedy Dem billionaires like Milken, and Beutner of the LA Times.
LikeLike
That is likely in some cases but it is such a pervasive idea among the political class that I think it is deeper than just corrupt ethics.
LikeLike
Ellen
The coterie’s been rewarded handsomely for their DFER support. Pres. Obama’s group moved to Wash. D.C., where they’ve never shown any interest in getting other Democrats elected.
In a recent interview, Axelrod and his wife were brought, almost to tears, in their self-congratulations, about his political accomplishments “for the nation”. Amazing, since Congress hasn’t acted, in the interest of 90% of Americans, in decades and Axelrod selected, for post- D.C. employment, the foremost university preaching free markets.
The outcome of DFER’s vision, in terms of re-segregation, defunding of public education and siphoning of education funds from communities, to the pockets of opportunistic profiteers from Wall Street, Silicon Valley and criminal enterprise, was easily predicted.
The Chicago contingent doesn’t strike me as naïve.
The rain-makers looked at the data, 25% of campaign funds came from working people, the rest from money guys. What to give away? Education, big payday for the money guys. Even if Pres. Obama had strong convictions about schools for children in poverty, he could have been re-directed by the king-makers, if they’d seen it as advantageous.
Recently, I talked with a Massachusetts retired school superintendent, who was fund-raising for Dems. She’d never heard of DFER and was clueless about the issues. So, imagine, how few other voters, would identify a problem with Democratic education policy. No downside to the coterie’s decision.
LikeLike
Ellen Lubic — interesting. In my upstate-NY boomer days (’70’s) I was proud to have teaching certificate which was reciprocal w/Cal– we knew we were the nation’s best, CA & NY. Then came Prop 13. All I could figure was that CA no longer wished to pay for top-notch ed– stopped thinking about it. 30 yrs later, befriended a new [NJ] neighbor, younger, moved in from CA, & asked why her family chose to pay extra for a private school (as our publics were top-rated). Her answer: in her entire lifetime in CA, public schools were the bottom of the heap, & everyone struggled to afford private schooling at whatever cost. She just could not bring herself to put her kids in public schools.
LikeLike
Tultican… “That is likely in some cases but it is such a pervasive idea among the political class that I think it is deeper than just corrupt ethics.”
I agree. There is an ideology there. I think it’s that “third-way” idea– an attempt to find a halfway-point between the untrammeled-capitalism folks and the progressives [toward the socialism end of the spectrum.] Unfortunately, the current ideology promoted by both parties has landed us too far toward the ‘untrammeled-capitalism’ end of the spectrum. I’m not sure that the 3rd-way folks are onto anything at all. So far, their ‘ptivate-public partnership’ ideas have been totally hijacked by the private, for-profit folks.
LikeLike
bethree5,
Don’t the Waltons fund Third Way?
LikeLike
I can’t speak for ‘most Democrats’, you may be right. My only window is onto well-educated Democrats in a wealthy metro-NY suburb with excellent schools. Our town enthusiastically supported its Supt of Schools in early 2000’s, when he appealed to Gov Christie to waive us from NCLB-generated tests which we saw as expensive, time-consuming, curriculum-stealing time-wasters for a nationally-high-ranking district.
Because NJ re-distributes property taxes from wealthy suburbs to poor districts (& because we have no corporations to contribute taxes to our district), we have virtually no state aid; we pay 96% of the school budget from our RE taxes. The unfunded burden of CCSS & its assessments really hurts, & it’s like being doubly taxed when implementation dumbs down the curriculum so dearly purchased w/the highest property taxes in the nation.
Christie turned us down.
We are getting by at the moment. Property tax raises are held to 2.5% by state law. But when you’re starting from too-high, that means add $500+/yr. Where you see the impact: every ’50’s Cape Cod house for sale is razed & replaced w/a $1mill McMansion, & the bit of woods we had here & there are razed & McMansioned to add to the tax base. The culture changes; entrepreneurs are replaced by Manhattan stockbrokers; family-owned businesses are replaced by chains…
All this to maintain an excellent public school system, which keeps home buyers coming. But where does it end?
LikeLike
While it is true that Obama’s personal educational history has allowed him to study like a privileged person, I don’t know if this alone is responsible for his policies. The amount of money in politics today is obscene. Those running for office are generally multi-millionaires or billionaires. Just by being a member of Congress, most legislators become millionaires! How it happens, nobody knows for sure, but we can guess. Both parties are out of touch with the middle and working class. Forget the poor. It’s easier to blame them than help them.
LikeLike
Or just shuffle them along from change to change.
LikeLike
You’ve put your finger on it, retired teacher. It really doesn’t matter what legislators’ morals are, whether they’re in or out of touch with the middle and working class. To get into office, their policies must please the deep pockets that support their campaigns. To stay in office: ditto.
Over a period of 40 yrs or so, we have allowed our legislators to tweak the governmental system so that campaign-funders and lobbyists have more power than voters. Once the deep-pocket-supported were in charge, they put their people into the Supreme Court, hence Citizens’ United decision, doubling down on the graft & corruption in place. This to date has been our govt’s response to global competition, automation, etc challenges to national prosperity.
We can keep going in this direction & be assured that eventually riots, chaos, & worse [dictatorship?] will ensue. I take the rise of the Tea Party, the popularity of Bernie Sanders, & even the poularity of Donald Trump as signals that mainstream voters are awakening.
LikeLike
“Democratic elites exempt themselves from policies that they might oppose if they saw their own children being harmed by them.”
The same can be said about Democrats (myself included) whose children go to suburban public schools because they can afford property costs.
Also, no doubt some of this is politics. The Teachers Unions backed Hillary in the primary, which is the part of the election process where that really counted. They therefore had less influence with him than they typically would have with a Democratic president.
LikeLike
John, you’re onto something. I’m not sure which came first: AFT’s endorsement of Hillary or Obama looking to Wall Street for cash. Knowing that Rahm Emanuel was involved, and had been involved in Bill Clinton’s fundraising from Wall Street–and move to the center–I tend to think AFT endorsed after it was clear that Obama would not advance the union platform. Just guessing.
LikeLike
Most suburban parents CAN’T afford the living costs. They are in massive debt or on a financial knife edge. Our suburb has seen economically disadvantaged students quadruple. Food pantry visits are up. More houses for rent or foreclosed sales. There is no growing, stable middle class.
LikeLike
” ‘Democratic elites exempt themselves from policies that they might oppose if they saw their own children being harmed by them.’
“The same can be said about Democrats (myself included) whose children go to suburban public schools because they can afford property costs.”
Yes, but… Here in NJ, our property taxes are redistributed to poor districts, so that e.g. in my wealthy town whose schools are among nation’s best, we have miniscule state aid & pay 96% of local school budget from our own RE taxes. We actually HAVE fought (unsuccessfully) state ed policies– they’ve invaded our towns: we are not exempt from CCSS/PARCC. We are not complacent when state policies threaten to cost more yet dumb down our curiculum. Opt-Out will succeed here.
Yet I hear you. I have well-educated local friends who pay scant attention to “One Newark” privatization policies a mere 20-min drive from here. Those policies are for ‘those people’, they think. They don’t get that privatized charter-chains will come knocking at our door soon enough; there is only so much profit to made off the inner-city taxes.
LikeLike
Partly it’s wealthy Democrats’ agenda.
Partly, it’s a management ideology of management-by-numbers (aka test-and-punish).
Partly, it’s a political strategy for claiming progress in education in the midst of resegregation and privatization of public education.
I’m willing add other factors, or subtract.
LikeLike
I just think national politicians have a problem because of the unrelenting sameness in their responses. I listened to the GOP forum (some of it) and with the single exception of vouchers, they sound exactly like Arne Duncan.
I am just so, so tired of the business language they use. I don’t have any problem with business terms, but is it really necessary to jam everything in the world into this narrow box where we may only talk about “ROI” and “tight/loose” and “outcomes, not input”? Can’t we have a public sector AND a private sector? Politicians in the past seemed to be able to navigate both. It really sin’t “pick one”. One can value both sectors for different reasons.
LikeLike
I agree. Business terminology killed education. (Kinda like video killed the radio star). Seriously, the minute we put “stakeholders” in mission statements for elementary schools, we were done. Because if schools aspire to carry education out like business, then who better to tell them how than business? Better yet, hell. . . how about business takes over?
We should have left language about nurture and development and civic process in there instead.
LikeLike
Thanks, now I’ve got the 80s stuck in my head. 😉
LikeLike
Dienne. Anytime. Plenty a tunes here. 🙂
LikeLike
Nonsense. If Obama’s education policies are a result of his own educational experience, what accounts for the thousands of high level elected officials who grew up privileged and are perfectly capable of making good public policy? Of course, that seems to be a thing of the past, but it isn’t because of Obama’s personal experience.
What we have seen is a shift since the 90s among Democrats, led by Rahm Emanuel as Bill Clinton’s fundraiser, deciding that Wall Street cash was not just for Republicans. It became more lucrative to court Wall Street than the Unions. Values be damned.
LikeLike
Yep
LikeLike
I agree. There is too much money pulling all the strings their way, and it is true for both parties.
LikeLike
Ditto…it goes further back than the current Manchurian candidate Prez. Powerful and greedy Dems joined their Repub peers and have become immediate lobbyists for Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. right out of their DC offices. It is all about money.
Review the Dun & Bradstreet assets of entering legislators, and then review their ill gotten gains immediately after they leave office to become DC whores working for corporations. Almost all come into office with paltry assets, and leave office as millionaires.
And their self assigned right as legislators to do insider stock market trading…something private citizens get indicted for. When this came to light in the last major election, they were forced to vote this disgusting privilege out, but then, after winning the election, voted it back in, in the middle of the night, to be able to enrich themselves. And for all this underhanded activity, they are awarded lifetime benefits….while teachers are losing all benefits. Wake up America.
LikeLike
I think it’s hopeless at the DC because of things like this:
“We are in the midst of a new era—one with more engaging lessons and creativity and innovation, which is bringing joy back into the classroom.”
They hear critics say market based, data-driven education is joyless and grim and they simply announce that they are, in fact, bringing joy back to the classroom.
Done. Rhetoric adjusted. It’s just a brick wall. Nothing is getting in there.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leading-from-classroom-arne-duncan
LikeLike
It is really hard not to be cynical about the last several decades of policies for public education,including the fidea that “disruptive innovation” is always a positive force in communities, and in the lives of children and their families. Setting up public schools for failure was a choice made by CEOs dating back to the 1990s and with backing from Bill Clinton. Since then we have seen nothing but huge outflows of federal funds to propagate “perfection” or else requirements–100% proficiency on standardizd tests. While creating an iron-fisted accountability system, amped once with NCLB then again with RTT, federal policies and funds (aided by the courts) also seeded and propagated “innovations” noteworthy among these the growth of charter schools.
Since 1995, federal investments in charter schools have topped $3.5 billion and USDE cannot tell you anything credible about this program. Even so, USDE is still on deck to expanded charter funding in this year’s budget.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) offered up two scathing criticisms of USDE for a failure to require charter schools and charter authorizers that received grants to document how the grant money was used. There is no national database of charter school churn—openings, closings, consolidations, expansions, expenditures and frauds. USDE officials told investigative reporters to go the National Association of Charter School Authorizers to get answers on these matters–the lobby to promote charters?!!!
The charter school program began in the Clinton administration. I think that means Hillary is unlikely to stop the program or really address the total failure of accountability for the funds, the churn in school openings and closing, the outright fraud and so on.
People who think that schools alone can address and “compensate” for the effects of poverty, even with full spectrum wrap-around services, do not want to the acknowledge the geography and influence of poverty and racism, especially the role of other institutions in creating problems that show up in schools. The other institutions include banks, insurance companies, real estate developers, champions of economic development based on tax abatements from schools, and now the billionaires with foundations and unparalleled interest and power to set national priorities.
Education is not really a national priority in this election season. At best it is topic that can be dismissed with cliche-ridden talking points that might gather votes.
LikeLike
Laura, Your comments re: “the other institutions” and “champions of economic development are spot on! For over 100 years, a particular Georgia community fought the closing of local schools by a movement that was spearheaded by all of “the other institutions”. Finally, population growth came to the area, and the closing of local schools finally became, thankfully, a dead issue! It IS all about MONEY on so many levels and in so many ways!
LikeLike
Considering the amount of waste and fraud in charters, I think the citizens need to wake up and demand accountability. Maybe new charters should have to have put up collateral that can be seized if they shut down. We shouldn’t just be writing blank checks.
LikeLike
retired teacher,
Not that I agree with your premise, but FYI, “dissolution funds” are becoming required by many authorizers. Good idea IMO.
LikeLike
Laura: what you say is epitomized by the all-charter/ voucher New Orleans Recovery School District, held up as a model to be copied by other states: they’re not sure how many students they serve, nor do they know how many drop out before graduation. They call it “public school education”, yet they have ceded, by default, their state’s constitutional duty to provide a decent K-12 ed to all kids to… ?
LikeLike
Obama is a product of the Chicago machine, and they’ve been deforming education since the 1980s.
LikeLike
That’s right. And Emanuel let him know that Wall St would pay for it. Don’t worry about losing union support; Wall St will more than make up for it.
LikeLike
My view: I do not believe that Obama is a product of the Chicago machine. I do NOT like his education policies any more than you do but our public schools have been denigrated before Bill Clinton even. I remember well when “A Nation at Risk” came out. THAT is what laid the foundation for what is happening now. EVERY teacher was incompetent, EVERY school was a failure ad nauseum. It has degraded, worsening virtually every year.
Obama did not have a strong foundation in the Congress to see how politics really worked. He chose poor people to surround himself with including, for us, Arne Duncan. This is no excuse, only an observation. I have violently disagreed with him on other vital issues too but in my view the Republicans are even worse.
It bothers me, I understand the sentiment, but it bothers me to see educators become one ;issue only. Actually it frightens me in that I see our nation heading toward disaster unless a new turn is taken. I like very much Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who in my opinion MIGHT turn things around. I hope they can. As a long time educator education is vitally important to me for MANY reasons but is not the only issue on which to judge what MIGHT be done in the future in other policies which directly or indirectly affect teachers and our schools.and in my view by focusing on one issue only, education per se, that could be very counterproductive to that which we all want.
LikeLike
What is it, that, which we all want?
LikeLike
I think this is definitely a factor, though I had my own thoughts about the problem posted last week. But off-list someone who is very smart about these matters added this: Many parents “think of their school district as being bureaucratic, unresponsive and having some very good, experienced teachers, but also a significant number of burned-out time servers. And while many of them sympathize with unions in general, they’re not very sympathetic toward those that seem to be defending a status quo that they find unacceptable. Similar parents can be found in large numbers in every big, Democratic urban area.” They may be victims of a lot of anti-teacher and anti-union propaganda, no doubt, but they can be quite anxious, to put it mildly, when it comes to their own children: “if I can’t get him into a good school, he’ll end up in jail.”
Dems need to try to satisfy such folks, and I think with Nicholas that they’ve walked down the wrong road trying to do so.
There’s also the ideology of “choice,” which “reformers” have exploited for all it’s worth,, as if schools were muffins.
I think it’s important to face all of these obstacles, including the ones I mentioned: the Dems excessive focus on national elections and policy formulations, and their bonding with traditional civil rights organizations that have their own agendas. One of the virtues of the OptOut movement is that it implicitly, and often as in NY explicitly, raises these issues. As, of course, does this blog.
It seems to me a priority in the current moment to push the Dems to distinguish themselves from the profit-oriented, anti-union, teacher-bashing positions that the Christies and Walkers and Bushes seem to have made Republican porridge.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
I agree, but it lets other Democratic candidates off the hook when we reduce policy decisions to natural outgrowths of childhood experiences. What about Bernie Sanders? He’s for labor, but votes the wrong way on education policy.
LikeLike
Wait a minute. The crux of this post is a review of the book “President Obama and Education Reform: The Personal and the Political” written by two extreme charter advocates, Michael Q. McShane (of the rightwing American Enterprise Institute) and Robert Maranto who heads up the University of Arkansas’s Department of Education Reform. I can guess which billionaire Arkansas philanthropist endows that chair. Oops, it’s the entire department: http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/conservative-think-tanker-to-head-ua-school-reform-operation/Content?oid=867264
So, no, I don’t think it’s illuminating to reduce the sellout of the Democratic party to a discussion of Obama’s personal school experiences. I’ll end where I started: Nonsense.
LikeLike
I guess the book would be infuriating to read? Where can one go for a more honest and complete picture of Obama’s education views? I read a biography of his mother searching for answers. What should I read instead?
LikeLike
I don’t get your point. There’s nothing in the post which points to the books you mention. Care to clarify?
Meanwhile I completely agree with: “I don’t think it’s illuminating to reduce the sellout of the Democratic party to a discussion of Obama’s personal school experiences.” I think it’s ludicrous and condescending to conclude that our President’s national educational policy stems from his own personal anecdotes.
My speculation is that he was looking to change our many-decades-long locked-in poor education for poor folks. As a pragmatist with a neoliberal bent, he observed that political winds were coalescing toward breaking up public education via ‘school choice’ & decided to give it a whirl.
LikeLike
Children who are violent walk in their own shoes from an environment that raised them to be that way. That violence was not taught to them in the public schools. That violence is not genetic. That violence was already there when they were born waiting for them to arrive and then that education started years before kindergarten arrived. Most of that time that education took place on the streets because the parent/guardian had to work more than one job and was gone all the time just to earn enough to survive.
When a public school has high rates of violence, that violence did not start the moment a child arrived at school for the first time. That violence followed the children from the community to the school and then it followed them home when they left.
Most of the public schools in dangerous communities with high crime rates that also suffer from too much poverty are havens of safety for those children and often one of the few save havens where a free or reduced meal is also waiting to combat child hunger and malnutrition.
In their greedy, power hungry race to destroy the public schools, the Rheeformers will destroy all that and then there will be no safe havens for children—none.
LikeLike
I remember reading comments about how horrible it is that schools treat kids like criminals and make them go through metal detectors. My own experience was that the students in general were relieved, both the innocent and those who might get caught up in the violence. It made the school a safe(r) place for everyone. The school could then function as a safe haven.
LikeLike
The high school where I taught probably should have had metal detectors, but it didn’t. Instead, the HS had it’s own squad of campus police officers (CPOs) with badges. They were linked together with walkie talkies and had bikes and patrolled the hallways all day. The district didn’t allow them to carry firearms but they had Mace, handcuffs and standard issue police clubs. Hardly a day didn’t go by that the local police wouldn’t have squad cars outside at the curb in the main parking lot as they arrived to take away some of the teens in handcuffs.
At lunch every day one Sheriffs squad car drove on campus with two officers inside and they’d sit there and watch the quad and the students had lunch. The staff knew why. There were rival gangs on campus that were at war with each other. The wrong colored shoe laces or jacket could get you killed or beat severally.
There were a few riots and probably more fights at lunch where the gangs went at each other, and then the regular police would arrive in droves from all the local cities. The officers in that squad car must have called them the instant things went wild.
Once a riot broke out during a football game after regular school hours, and the police arrived in minutes and swarmed over the campus to reach the stadium and break it up.
Once that I know off, one of our CPOs chased a kid off campus during lunch who was on suspension and wasn’t supposed to be there. Off campus and in the neighborhood that the gangs ruled supreme, the kid stopped pulled out a pistol he’d had on him all the time and aimed it at the CPO letting him know that he was on the kids turf now. The CPO threw up his hands to let the kid know he’d won and the CPO turned around and walked back through the gate an onto the campus.
I’m sure that the CPO filed a report and soon there would be a warrant for that kids arrest out.
I have a lot more true stories simliar to these. And the RheeFormers are punishing the teaches who live with this reality every day. Those kids are going to eat the replacements trained to be robots instead of teachers. Once the veteran teachers are gone, all of those schools are going to destruct. I’m sure the RheeFormers know this and want it to happen.
Maybe there should be list of who is responsible for what is happen and that list should be mailed to all the leaders of the street gangs across America so they know. Some of these teen gangs are extremity dangers and violent and are linked to the Mexican drug cartels.
LikeLike
How about “why has public abandoned public education?” Some of the barbs being thrown out here against all these “elite, billionaire, greedy Democrats” strikes me as over-simplistic. I was a CSEA organizer against Prop 13 in CA back in the 70s and even in my region, the Westside of LA, the schools were horribly crowded back then, with run down campuses, dumbed down curriculum, a bureaucracy full of strife. So, what ARE the solutions? If the public and the public sector had done a better job of innovating schools and providing the funding needed, then charters and private efforts would not have taken hold. I wish some of this heated rhetoric would cool down long enough for a consensus on whether the federal government has a national stake in education policies, and if so, what would be the best way to proceed. Measurable standards seemed to be what both legislators and educators had identified as important. The last time I had reviewed the Science standards for K-6, between U.S. states was about 10 years ago. I was dismayed at the wide range of expectations and I felt, at that time, that national standards ought to be developed. From there, however, school districts, employee unions, and state DOE’s should have been given proper time and funding to come up with local implementation solutions, rather than the national contracts that went to Pearson and similar private market solutions.
LikeLike
Fixating on standards is a dead end. We have standards up the wazoo –making standards is easy. The hard part is translating them into excellent lessons day after day. That’s really hard. And that’s what we don’t have. We talk about standards like crazy. We test like crazy. But we fail at the work of building the nuts-and-bolts of curriculum: well-crafted and TESTED units and lessons. I emphasize “tested” because it’s easy to pull lessons out of your a** , publish them and dub them gold, just as it’s easy to write cooking recipes. Our lame professional journals like English Journal are full of these dubious lessons. Lucy Calkins and other charlatans have built careers on these. What’s rare are lessons that have been independently verified as good. Cooks Illustrated meticulously tests the recipes it publishes, which makes it credible and highly useful. We don’t have a Cooks Illustrated for the teaching profession, but we need one.
LikeLike
‘How about “why has public abandoned public education?”‘
I agree 100%. It’s easy to blame others.
LikeLike
But you have your answer right here: “I was a CSEA organizer against Prop 13 in CA back in the 70s and even in my region, the Westside of LA, the schools were horribly crowded back then, with run down campuses, dumbed down curriculum, a bureaucracy full of strife. So what ARE the solutions?”…
Yes. And proposition 13 passed: Californians’ statement that they were no longer willing to pay for *even* the substandard ed in your area. You continue, “I wish some of this heated rhetoric would cool down long enough for a consensus on whether the federal government has a national stake in education policies, and if so, what would be the best way to proceed.”
Forget the fed govt. They talk, but all they pay is a few millions here & there for adopting stds & aligned tests that cost more than they’re worth to implement. That is the sum total of their ‘stake’.
Your state has continued to slash funding to public ed over the decades since the ’70’s– not just to K-12, they’ve decimated the once-best-in-country higher ed system– & have even made union-busting vendettas against veteran K-12 teachers in order to pave the way for cheaper newbies– and have recently made it crystal-clear via the Vergara decision that the state does not even support due process [tenure] for those pushed-out [even award-winning] veterans– all to squeeze CApublic-ed into the reduced budget that reflects their very low interest in paying for education.
National standards are the least of CA’sed challenges.
LikeLike
Sad that the unions lack the credibility to stand up for education. They can only stand up for their party, which proved itself unreliable. Now the AFT has already made the SAME mistake. I am thankful that I am not forced to pay dues to useless organizations. You would think that their experience with President Obama, their inability to counter Scott Walker, and the myriad of failures they have experienced in the last 8 years would cause them to change course. NO! Any token opposition they put up now is disingenuous.
LikeLike
Good Democrats begin with the premise that poor and minority kids are holy and good and just as teachable as any privileged kid. If they’re emerging from public schools with little to show for it, it’s the school’s fault, period Though it goes against a Democrat’s grain to say such things, the alternative –that these kids are very hard, sometimes impossible, to educate (for many reasons) –is almost unthinkable and, in any case, positively un-sayable. Since it’s impossible to “go there”, best to stick with dismantling the public schools.
At a Silicon Valley party recently, the head of a prestigious scientific institution who holds liberal views informed me that California schools were 49th in the nation in quality. “You mean our average test scores are 49th, ” I said. What do you expect when at least 50% of our students are poor and Hispanic? If Massachusetts had these demographics, it would be 49th. You cannot infer anything about the quality of schools from stats like these. Given these demographics, even if every CA public school were staffed and equipped like Sidwell Friends, our test scores would still be terrible (except in math –KIPP and Success are decent at boosting math scores because math is a finite set of ideas that can be successfully transmitted during the school day; reading, on the other hand, is heavily dependent on home vocab and world knowledge cultivation).
California students are smart and lovable and deserving of our utmost support –but let’s face it, most of them are not about to excel at academics anytime soon. Changing that will take generations because it depends on an invisible home support infrastructure that doesn’t yet exist in many CA homes.
If you begin with false premises, you’ll end up with failed reforms.
LikeLike
Where do the Democratic 2016 presidential campaigns stand on education “reform”? This would make an excellent blog post for those of us who want to know more.
LikeLike
Janet,
I would like to know where the Dems stand on K-12. When I find out, I will let you know
LikeLike
Our county Democratic Chair stated, “There’s a rift within the Democratic Party, on education.”
LikeLike
What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.
The government is, in essence, reinforcing a two tiered system for the have and have nots.
Unfortunately for those who are “making the rules”, some of those “marked” as potential “have nots” know how public schools should be run and they are not too accepting of the “bill of goods” being sold by Arne & Company, thus we have the Opt Out Movement.
The Civil Rights Movement started with a seat on the bus, the Opt Out Movement begins with an unsharpened number two pencil.
Ellen T Klock
LikeLike
Years ago, I had made the same observations with the Clintons, in a somewhat different, perhaps opposite context.
Mercifully, they did not attack the public schools, but chose to send their daughter, Chelsea, to the same school as the Obamas later did, rather than to a DC public school, while at the same time being against vouchers that would have allowed parents of far lesser means to do something similar.
While no one can fault parents for sending their child to a school which they think is best for him/her, surely there is something wrong in preventing others from doing the same (as vouchers, for example, would have allowed).
There was, in my opinion, more than a bit of hypocrisy in the stance taken by the Clintons and other leading Democrats who did as they did.
I am no fan of the current ed-reform movement, with its financial drivers and all the harm, on multiple fronts, that it has created.
But if the Democrats of Clinton’s time and the teachers and their unions had woken up to and acknowledged and addressed the fact that there were severe problems in many of the public schools (such as in DC and in NY City and elsewhere), along with their many strengths and accomplishments, then perhaps things might have been different.
But when I raised this (as a teacher myself, who saw the plight of students trapped in my zone school in Brooklyn, a once excellent school that was in decline owing to a number of reasons that I have written about in earlier comments, some not in the school’s control but others still tractable) I was told that we could not speak openly to the public about the problems that plagued our schools, because
(a) it would make the schools and teachers “look bad”;
(b) it would not go well given the racial divisions and animosities that existed and that might be aggravated;
(c) it would open us to attack by the media.
I then predicted that:
(a) if teachers did not act and did not get parents’ support to tackle the problems, then teachers (who were not by any means the primary or even tertiary cause of the problems) would be scapegoated when the effect of the problems on the students’ education became impossible to hide;
(b) those who always disliked tax money going towards public schools in “troubled” districts would use this opportunity to attack public education (and the teachers and their unions) and would enlist, in this, parents who felt they were trapped in school districts where the schools were in decline.
I was told then that the minority populations who often made up a major share of the parents in the troubled districts would never vote for the Republicans.
I am not at all pleased that my predictions have come true. I did not then imagine, however, that the establishment Democrats would get on this ed-reform movement in such a negative way as they have done, from Obama and Duncan on down.
LikeLike
I support Common Core, it’s the implementation and high stakes testing that cause it to fail. The idea that we would actually teach our kids to think is appalling to many. Inquiry based education is really the only way for students to learn. But until the politicians truly understand that testing does NOT measure a child’s or teacher’s success, we will never have the education system that we both want and need.
LikeLike
Can we really teach kids to think? Or can we only give them the knowledge that enables them to use their built in thinking capacities well? Teaching content, it seems to me, is teaching thinking.
LikeLike
Yes, teachers can show children how to think. It’s called critical thinking and problem solving. In fact, back in the early 1990s before testing became king in California, us teachers attended workshops and then implemented teaching methods called “Into, Through and Beyond.”—at least that’s what I remember more than twenty years later.
The problem must have been that there was no language linked to improving test scores. Instead, this method was built on a foundation that would develop critical thinking and problem solving.
The STAR Program was the cornerstone of the California Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). The primary objective of the PSAA was to help schools improve the academic achievement of all students.
In April 2007, the U.S. Department of Education enacted regulations for an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards, and in response to the federal regulations the CDE has developed the California Modified Assessment (CMA), an alternate assessment of the California content standards based on modified achievement standards for children with an individualized education program (IEP) who meet the eligibility criteria adopted by the State Board of Education
STAR was replaced in late 2013-early 2014 with the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), also known as the Measurement of Academic Performance and Progress (MAPP).
Once testing came in the rule the roost, just about everything else went out.
LikeLike
David Coleman was the lead writer of the CC ELA Standards. He wrote a short essay, “Cultivating Wonder,” explaining this philosophy of education. I have argued elsewhere that the problem smany people see with the standards are right there in Coleman’s essay.
LikeLike
Very well said!!
Lack of empathy.
LikeLike
Obama has NO CLUE about Hawai’i’s public schools. Obama walked one short block to school and lived in the Punahou bubble.
LikeLike
Obama and Obama alone is responsible for his wholly destructive policies on public education. Despite constant media fluff about grandmothers sending his campaign five-dollar contributions, Obama received more Wall Street funding than any candidate in American history. There was a reason for that. Even as few others did, Wall Street operators understood Obama to be the most Wall Street friendly and corporatist candidate in the running. (This was more than obvious to anyone who looked at his paper-thin resume.) They also knew that the mere fact that he was an African American (and one of great eloquence) would silence many of good faith that believed that the symbolic import of an African American president trumped all other factors. Or, under an elongated cloud of magical thinking, that Obama himself was somehow not privy to his own signature and radical educational policies. I still have teachers who insist, beyond all reason, that Duncan and not Obama is responsible for the abomination of Race to the Top. Obama has done exactly what his backers have required him to do: make major headway into the privatization of all things under the sun. That process is well under way and education is only the beginning.
LikeLike