Over the weekend, I attended a board meeting of the Network for Public Education. Xian Barrett, a teacher in Chicago on the board, made a startlingly perceptive comment over lunch. He said to me, “The reformers are often right when they describe the problem, but they are always wrong when they offer a solution.”
You won’t find a better, clearer demonstration of this axiom than this post by Peter Greene.
Peter analyzes the “social justice” argument for charters and choice. Reformers are right, he says, when they charge that schools in poor communities are often grossly inadequate:
“Reformsters start here with the premise that non-wealthy non-white students must be rescued from the terrible schools that are inextricably tied to poor support, poor resources, poor staffing, poor neighborhoods, and the lousy local control that leads to all of these poor inputs.”
But their reforms save a few while making things far worse for the majority.
“This problem is even more damaging in schools that are already underfunded and under-resourced. Losing money to charter-choice systems just makes the troubled school that much more financially distressed. So to “rescue” these ten kids, we are going to make things even worse for the ones left behind.
“The charter-choice system, as currently conceived and executed, promises a possible maybe rescue for some students while making the vast majority of non-white non-wealthy students pay for it, while simultaneously lulling policy makers into thinking that the problem is actually being solved, all in a system that allows charter operators to conduct business without being answerable to anyone.
“The problem (see First Part) is real. The solution being inflicted on public education is making things worse, not better. It is making some folks rich and providing excellent ROI for hedge funders, but neither of those outcomes exactly equals a leap forward in social justice. There’s a whole argument to be had about charter booster motives; I figure that some are in it because they believe it will work better and some are in it because they believe it’s the last great untapped well-spring of tax dollars. Ultimately, their motivation isn’t as important as this: their solution will not actually solve anything.”
Blogger and retired teacher G.F. Brandenburg wrote–after reading this post–that Peter Greene “may be the best blogger in America.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I agree 100%. Except I disagree about MOTIVES. I don’t think you can separate motives from dishonesty. If your motives are truly good, you don’t have to lie about your results or condone lies. I have read perhaps one or two charter leaders who are trying to be honest about their schools, and they are drowned out by people promoting charters with dishonesty and their enablers — the funders, newspaper reporters, and all the promoters who pretend they “care about the kids who the can help” to tell themselves their lies and dishonesty can be justified. There is no result, no child helped, that can be justified by a dishonesty that hurts many more children. And until the charter operators — even the good ones — start condemning the dishonesty, their motives are suspect. Keeping quiet when you see a dishonest bully hurting many kids because you think your own school helps at least a few kids is not acceptable.
If the motives were honest, the ‘reformers’ would only serve the poorest communities. We know that greed is one of the main motivators. As a result, we see charters moving into middle class areas. We also see, as in the case of New York, the harm a compromised governor can do. Through test, punishment and a rigged evaluation system, he is threatening many good schools and teachers throughout the state in order to deliver more resources to charters. This is deliberately dishonest and threatens the entire system.
That is a quote by G. K. Chesterton: “The reformer is always right about what’s wrong.
However, he’s often wrong about what is right.”
From the article:
“Reformsters routinely charge that public school supporters use poverty as an excuse for not teaching poor kids well.”
This is pure hogwash. Reformsters, having spent not one minute in front of a class of high needs students, clearly don’t understand the difference between, “teaching well” and “learning well”. To suggest that the actual teachers in the high needs schools of NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, LA, Miami, Newark, Boston, et. al. are “not teaching well” because they don’t think poor kids can learn is beyond insulting. Using the phrases “bad schools” and “failing schools” is equally insulting. So once again we have a reform crowd that continues to rest their arguments on the cornerstones of mistrust, insults, lies, and ignorance. A pretty shoddy foundation upon which to build.
Here is what most reformsters simply do not understand about teaching in high needs schools; here is the nut of their ignorance:
Teachers in high needs schools are completely constrained by student (and even parent) behaviors. They are forced to work with a much, much smaller toolbox than teachers in affluent districts. This is not a politically correct statement but it IS the truth.
Constraining behaviors include: poor attendance, apathy, inattention, distraction, disruption, disrespect, violence, drug use, defiance, and at time, reverse racism,
To overcome these behavioral issues is draining – physically, mentally, and emotionally. So teacher burn-out is inevitable and understandable.
Unless a refomster is willing to teach a mile in our shoes, they should just shut up, go away, and find their next shiny thing to play with.
Peter Greene IS a really good blogger, but ed reformers promised much more than “we won’t do harm to public schools with our choice system”. They promised they would improve public schools. That they have succeeded in moving the goalposts to a much narrower objective, where they (now) promise great charter and voucher systems is an entirely different sales pitch. It matters not in terms of the billionaires or think tanks who are accountable to no one, but it matters a lot in terms of the elected officials because we now have a giant cohort of politicians who are “ed reformers” at both the state and federal level. If they want to privatize public schools, they should have to run on that. I don’t think most people listening to them prattle on about “improving” public schools interpreted that to mean replacing public schools with an entirely new “choice” system complete with “governance” structures. I absolutely marvel at some of this stuff I read, where 150 unelected people are discussing how they plan on “governing” their new system. When were our elected officials planning on telling the rest of us? After they’re safely installed for another “cycle”?
Chiara: spot on.
But look at it from their POV: talking and communicating and clearly enunciating their plans and end-game would be, just, so inefficient and time-consuming and besides—
Doesn’t it just make you all tingly all over to know that the ‘better sort of people’ are relieving the rest of us of the burden of thinking and deciding?
😎
Peter’s post is inspired by a twitter exchange with former high ranking Michelle Rhee lieutenant, Dmitri Mehlhorn, and it is both illuminating and sad at the same time.
How is it that people like Mehlhorn can accurately identify a true problem such as income segregation and its impact on school quality for minority children and never turn the corner to recommend that policy aim to DECREASE that segregation? He acts as though the increase in the RISI since Reagan’s elections is a law of nature we are powerless to address instead of a policy choice we can change. I’d be a lot less hostile to the current charter sector if its boosters would advocate with equal fervor for policies that might just cost their financial backers more money in taxes but which would help a hell of a lot more young people in poverty.
One thing to be careful of — the charter school “reformers” are now taking up the notion of “segregation” as a new way to undermine public schools that are doing well but have far fewer low-income students. See, the newest “reformist” policy is that you can now blame problems on segregated schools. You don’t need more public school funding — instead, just spend some of those precious dollars to bus kids out of neighborhoods so they can attend an elementary school with an approved mix of races.
Meanwhile, if you actually speak to the parents in those high-poverty communities with low performing schools, they aren’t asking for desegregation — they just want well-funded schools right there in their own neighborhood. And the main reason that the schools with low percentages of poor kids are doing better is because the parents have the resources to subsidize their own children’ learning as money gets cut and class sizes increase. There isn’t some magic bullet that happens if you put 30% very poor white kids with 30% very poor African-American kids with 30% very poor Latino kids. It the money, stupid, and I suspect most of the “reformers” know this very, very well. And the more they can take resources from public schools — spend it on busing, cut more money from school budgets — the more the parents they are drooling over — college educated, affluent — will be driven to their charter schools. “Race” is irrelevant — whether the parents are college educated or believe strongly in education and support their child’s learning is.
My suspicion is that these “reformers” hope that if you take a public school that is doing well and tell affluent parents their child will be bused to a failing school instead, those parents will be driven right into the hands of charter schools that may be more economically diverse, but only because the poor kids have to shape up or ship out back to public schools. That way you can undermine the good public schools much faster. The charter schools are DESPERATE to get affluent parents into their schools because they know that will help the attrition rates that have been appalling for their low-income students who tend to more often be the children they prefer NOT to teach unless they are very well-behave and will learn easily and achieve good test scores.
While there is no ethical justification to starve public education, I do believe integration can help poor students improve tremendously. I taught ESL in the NYC suburbs in an integrated community. My students were over 90% free lunch, but the school average was about 30% poverty. Many of my former students did achieve and managed to attend college, own small businesses and move into the middle class. While funding is a big factor, so is the positive influence of other middle class students with mostly stable lives. We did not have to disrupt or bus students in order to balance the schools so we did not meet with community resistance. It was a very natural form of integration. I would hate to see charters jump on integration as a cause since all the research shows that charters are more segregated. http://www.democracyjournal.org/8/6596.php
Your points are well taken and we should fully fund all schools to the need based level. But it is also true that we’ve abandoned fair housing that integrates communities where people live. With better mixes of housing stock we’d see better investment in all communities.
The Wall Street Journal today has a big feature on the market share of public school students that the charter industry has captured, including a big picture of male students at Roxbury charter school, wearing uniforms, with a caption that says they are in a theater program. No mention of the rates of expelled kids.
The article misstates the results from a 2013 junk science study on charter schools from the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes at Stanford University. The comparison schools were “virtual public school twins” of real charters, conjured by statisticians to feed the idea that students in charters outscore their peers in public schools, never mind that the peers are entirely fictional. A great review of this study points out other fictions, among these a metric called “days of learning,” and basic errors including the misuse of a regression model. At best, there might have been less than one hundredth of one percent variation in reading test scores attributable to charter school enrollment. The CREDO study is a farce, junk science, but it has enjoyed big press from charter fans with absolutely no penalty to the researchers who work in a think tank and at Stanford, and feel no need to put the study into a standard peer review process. More at http://nepc.colorado.edu/think-tank/review-credo-2013
Regarding the methods with which so-called reformers misdirect and bamboozle by referring to actual issues – issues that in reality they couldn’t care less about – in the public schools, let us look to the Bard:
“The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek
A goodly apple rotten at the heart
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”
– The Merchant of Venice
Now just picture the smarmy, insipid words and manner of an Arne Duncan, a Cory Booker, a Wendy Kopp, et.al. (though not the vicious snarl of an Eva Moskowitz, whose manner gives the game away) when reading Billy the Shake, and you’ll know all you need to about “the civil rights movement of our time.”
It’s time for Cory Booker to work for the caliber of schools he attended in Harrington Park & Northern Valley school districts for all students–rather than to make Newark a charter capital. Those districts and yes, some football prowess helped him attend Stanford.
Much of what Peter Greene says we already know. He has a talent to distill complicated issues into simple analogies that even the brainwashed can understand. He should forward his post to the White House, John King, Oprah, the NAACP complicit governors, other assorted ‘reformers.’ and the many foundations that are circling the wagons of public education.
Best quotes from the post: ‘People don’t want choice. They want a good school.’ and
‘Our goal is not to improve a school in spite of the community. Our goal is to improve a community using schools.’
By the way if Warren Buffet believes that the quality of public schools would be better without charters as stated in this post, why does he plan to leave the bulk of his wealth to the Gates Foundation?
That’s a very good question.
Wonder what the answer is.
Please pardon the length of this comment.
I urge all viewers of this blog to click on the link in the posting and read the entire piece. The owner of this blog may well right that this is his best ever.
😃
With his posting as a starting off point: a few times I have described what the self-styled practitioners of “education reform” do as a kind of educational triage.
Let me provide a definition from Miriam-Webster [courtesy of their online site]:
[start]
Full Definition of TRIAGE
1 a : the sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors
b : the sorting of patients (as in an emergency room) according to the urgency of their need of care
2 : the assigning of priority order to projects on the basis of where funds and other resources can be best used, are most needed, or are mostly like to achieve success
[end]
Keep in mind Peter’s observations. Imagine you are a rheephorm heavyweight of some sort—from owners and top managers on down to the many enforcers and enablers. You think, albeit superficially and very self-interestedly, that you can do good for others by doing very very well for yourself. Add the deeply held rheephorm “soft bigotry of low expectations” about public schools, i.e., the reflexive idea that they are not just in the way but a big part of the problem and must be replaced/displaced/eliminated in order for progress to be made. Include a feel-good verbal emphasis on “no excuses” for students, parents, public school staffs and their associated communities while providing them and theirs endless amounts of wiggle room by repeating ad nauseam “don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good” aka putting off responsibility for actual ascertainable results into the distant future [I can’t help but add: urgency for results is only for public schools!]—Bill Gates, “It would be great if our education stuff worked, but that we won’t know for probably a decade.”
Last ingredient: the overpowering conviction that life has few winners and many many losers.
Mix it all together and you have the predictable outrage the rheephormsters have exhibited at being “swarmed” by such ungrateful and unfair critics as Peter Greene and the owner of this blog and so many others. As they see it, they’re doing the best they can do under difficult circumstances and producing results and all that they get from certain self-interested quarters is resistance and disagreement and an unwillingness to go along with the new and improved education establishment.
Hence the rheephorm triad: Double talk. Double think. Double standards. Exemplified above all by: what is not just good but must be mandated for OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN is not what they ensure for THEIR OWN CHILDREN. [Lakeside School, Bill Gates, a typical example.]
The rheephormsters are engaged in life-saving education triage. And remind us again and again that, well, from WEST SIDE STORY, riffing off the song “Gee, Officer Krupke”:
“Gee, general public, we’re very upset;
We’re not getting the love that ev’ry reformer oughta get.
We ain’t no delinquents,
We’re misunderstood.
Deep down inside us there is good!”
But life ain’t a musical. The leading rheephormistas make some gangsters look pathetic. And if rheephorm were a rheeal movie, perhaps a cage busting achievement gap crushing version of NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET with this playing in the background:
“One, two, Freddy’s coming for you.
Three, four, Better lock your door
Five, six, grab a crucifix.
Seven, eight, Ya better stay awake.
Nine, ten, He’s back again.”
Somebody feeling swarmed out there? Get over yourself.
😎
P.S. For the benefits of Kommon Korers, I guess I have to add that in the last bit you substitute “[rheephormster name to be included” where it says “Freddy.”
“The reformers are often right when they describe the problem, but they are always wrong when they offer a solution.”
Exactly what I’ve been saying every time VirginiaSGP makes a post here.
It would be nice if we (educators) adopted this argument instead of rejecting everything they (non-educator reformers) say, because when we deny that some of their “diagnoses” are correct, we lose credibility in their eyes. They are right that schools aren’t good enough; they are wrong about what to do about it.
“They are right that schools aren’t good enough.”
No. they are mostly wrong about this. Most of our public schools are working well.
Schools in impoverished communities are also working as well as they can given the constraint of student behaviors.
A public school can only be as strong as its weakest link. The only links in the chain that really matter are, students (and their parents), and teachers. These three parties make or break any school. In so-called “bad schools” or “failing schools” what we are faced with are the problems directly associated with family dysfunction. Teachers in these schools are NOT the weakest link. And until this weakest link is strengthened, all other efforts will produce either marginal or temporary improvements. By the time a child has reached 8th grade they have spent 5% of their lives in front of a teacher, given 100% attendance. The remaining 95% is in the hands of their parents/guardians and they have far more power over shaping expectations and behaviors than teachers.
Secondary teachers get 2 or 3 hours per week, per 20+ students, to turn the miracle many expect regarding “outcomes”. In fact, the expectations for true, authentic learning, critical thinking, and problem solving are wildly inflated by those who never taught.
To me the quote should be,”Some schools aren’t good enough.” That begs the questions why are’ reformers’ trying to undermine all public schools with test and punish schemes? The main answer is profit, not ideology. Instead of criticizing the way we fund schools or the fact that many urban schools have been ignored, the ‘reformers’ have decided to scapegoat teachers and collective bargaining rights. It just proves that ‘reform’ is not mostly civil rights or students; it is more about making money and destroying democracy.
NY Teacher said:
” Most of our public schools are working well.
Schools in impoverished communities are also working as well as they can given the constraint of student behaviors.”
Well, as someone who is well-studied in education psychology and philosophy, and doesn’t look at comparative test scores to determine anything, I disagree. The vast majority of schools have a long way to go. The “reformers” may have some of the wrong reasons that schools need improvement, but they do need improvement.
Yes, teachers and staff cannot do it all, but there is a wide open field of things we could improve on a systemic level.
Such as . . ?
“Such as . . ?”
Can you not think of any?
If not, have a field day: http://www.alfiekohn.org/articles/
I’m quite familiar with Alphie Kohn. His ideas have been around for some time. I especially like his take on homework. Yet you would never get a large scale buy in to his philosophy. Bottom line is, teachers and schools are very good a sticking with what works and getting rid of what doesn’t. I’m not sure you appreciate the scale of the situation. Three million teachers, 50 million children, 100 million parents,nearly 100,000 public schools. There is a reason change is so slow in public education. The inertia of this scale is immense. Include the very powerful and controlling forces of school cafeterias, school transportation, and school sports and the problems of meaningful change become much more complex. This is why outsiders have so much trouble understanding why it is the way it is. Got a great scheduling idea and the administration will say, sorry the cafeteria people won’t serve lunches after 1:PM. Want to start HS at 9:AM so teenagers are better rested? Sorry the athletic program stops that idea before you can finish the sentence.
Having worked in a school that improved, I accept that fact that schools should be trying to improve practice. This was an evolutionary, not revolutionary process. We didn’t throw out the baby with the bath water. The administration and staff worked together to make positive changes and tweak practice over about a decade. We went from being a school known for discipline issues to being a recipient of the Blue Ribbon from the DOE.
“Yet you would never get a large scale buy in to his philosophy.”
I’m not talking about “his” philosophy, I’m talking about all the issues he raises that are problems in schools across the board, and the countless things we can do differently to improve schools.
“Bottom line is, teachers and schools are very good a sticking with what works and getting rid of what doesn’t.”
…and I disagree. Maybe you do, too. You stated in the same post that such a large scale system will not buy in to new ideas, at least not for a long time. While I do not believe it is an easy thing for a school system to evolve, to argue that schools are doing most things “right” is incorrect. So then, schools are not “good enough” after all. Ever wonder why it was normal for so many kids to hate school throughout the 20th century, even before the profession was under “attack?” And schools haven’t really changed so much from the 20th century. Yeah… not good enough.
If you could wave your magic wand, which transformative changes would you make?
Specifics please. Thanks.
So the idea that “kids still hate school” is proof that “schools are not good enough after all”. This statement makes it hard to believe you have a background in psychology.
“If you could wave your magic wand, which transformative changes would you make?
Specifics please. Thanks.”
If you want specifics, go read through the link I posted earlier. There you will find specifics for days, and I agree with the vast majority of them. In short, curriculum, assessment, discipline, and teaching methods all need a major overhaul on a systemic level. Feel free to visit my website as well (click my name), if you would like more of my opinions and observations. My email address is also posted on my webpage if you would like to discuss further.
“So the idea that “kids still hate school” is proof that “schools are not good enough after all”. This statement makes it hard to believe you have a background in psychology.”
Look again at what I said, as you are misrepresenting my argument. I did not use student disinterest alone to justify my point that schools are not good enough. However, it is one indicator, of many, that we should make improvements. Since I understand a basic principle of educational psychology, I know that when students do not enjoy what they are doing, they will not learn at anywhere near their potential. Nor is it acceptable to me for students to go through their childhood loathing what they do every day.
“Let’s start here: The biggest problem of all is that students do not enjoy learning for its own sake. If we don’t somehow establish a love of learning, then everything else is in vain. The logical conclusion is that as many as possible of our goals and methods for education should revolve around student interest. It is both more respectful and more effective to design curriculum around the needs and desires of the students in that specific community, school, and classroom. One of the biggest reasons students don’t like school is that they are given little to no choice in what to learn and how to learn it.”
This idea is straight out of the 70s. It didn’t work then and won’t work now. So how would one design a math or history or science curriculum around their interest when they can vary so wildly within any class? If a kid wonders what he’ll be learning in my science class, my answer cannot be, oh I don’t know, what are YOU interested in?
True, students who don’t like school dislike it because they find it redundant, uninteresting, even boring. The solution to this is NOT to directly appeal to their personal interests. Many have few beyond video gaming or sports or their friends. The solution cannot involve adults deciding to make school about their world, their interests. The solution is making our subjects interesting, engaging, and surprising. Teachers need to draw students into our world, be it science, math, history, art, or music. They must be exposed to the widest variety of possibilities, we must open doors they don’t even know exist. Without this how could kids ever be inspired.
I don’t want to make this blog post my personal debate space, but I will entertain you for one more post, and you can email me if you truly wish to discuss these things.
“This idea is straight out of the 70s. It didn’t work then and won’t work now. ”
It didn’t work then according to who? And how many schools actually did this in the 70s (not many)? And who says “they” did it properly, and that there’s not another way to approach the same concept? There are many examples of interest-based curriculum “working,” both then and now. The best example, actually, is when you look at people learning things outside of school. It is indisputable that when interest drives learning, people learn better. It is absurd to push away the idea of more student choice and a higher degree of relevance. By the way, this idea is not out of the 70s. It is an idea that you can find throughout human history, and it is more specifically explored in schools in the early 20th century by a guy named John Dewey.
“So how would one design a math or history or science curriculum around their interest when they can vary so wildly within any class?”
Just because you don’t know a way to do it doesn’t mean a way doesn’t exist, or that it hasn’t been done, and or that it can’t be done. The idea is not to appeal to every student’s exact interest all the time, as that would be both impossible and not always the best course of action. Rather, it is to decide as a group what topics would be interesting to study, either as units of study, or within a unit. It’s not all or nothing, either, with the students deciding everything or the teacher deciding everything. Allowing students, as a group, to negotiate -some- elements of the curriculum would be a huge step from where we are right now. How this concept is implemented would obviously depend on the class, and various other factors, but do not let perfect be the enemy of good. The fact that this idea (of allowing student interest to play a role in what they actually study) upsets so many educators… is alarming, and it shows how disconnected school is from reality.
“If a kid wonders what he’ll be learning in my science class, my answer cannot be, oh I don’t know, what are YOU interested in?”
Yes, that would certainly be a poor way to go about it, and it’s not what good educators would actually do. There are various ways to implement this idea, and you can read about these ideas in practice on the website I posted earlier as well as in books such as “Loving Learning” by Tom Little. The idea that teachers must have all content laid out for all their students all the time is old fashioned and less effective, yet it is still standard operating procedure in schools.
“True, students who don’t like school dislike it because they find it redundant, uninteresting, even boring. The solution to this is NOT to directly appeal to their personal interests.”
It is not the “only” solution, but it is undoubtedly one very important piece of the puzzle of student apathy.
“Many have few [interests] beyond video gaming or sports or their friends.”
This is not as true as we think, but when it seems true it does not speak about human nature, but about our culture and the way schools are designed. Humans are curious about the world around them, especially as children, until we snuff it out and redirect their interests (either by intent or by accident). Go look at progressive schools and find students who are consistently interested in a variety of intellectual pursuits — this is how people actually are when we create for them a good environment, and offer them quality guidance so that they can pursue what seems interesting. Kids are not idiots who are only interested in sports and socializing… that is so far from the truth, and one of the attitudes we must fight to change.
“The solution is making our subjects interesting, engaging, and surprising.”
I agree that this is one good thing to do, but it is not the only or even the best approach. Laying out all the curriculum beforehand and then convincing students to “like it” is not good enough. This is a philosophical question more than a pedagogical question, and it has to do with who decides what we become, and who decides what we do. Students should not simply learn what we decide they will learn, even if we can make if fun and they start to like it.
“They must be exposed to the widest variety of possibilities, we must open doors they don’t even know exist. Without this how could kids ever be inspired.”
Well I can’t disagree there, except to say that the way we typically do this in schools is by coercion rather than a truly open presentation of possibilities.
Ed Detective:
With all due respect, I would say that the majority of those posting comments here are concerned that rheephorm WORDS don’t match rheephorm DEEDS.
And we point out the glaring contradictions between their words and their deeds. Then get attacked for same.
As for losing “credibility in their eyes”: they believe anybody outside their small circles doesn’t have any. They quite consistently—using one of their own catchy slogans— have a profoundly held “soft bigotry of low expectations” concerning pubic schools and their advocates.
Let me reinforce the above with this bit from Amanda Ripley’s THE SMARTEST KIDS IN THE WORLD AND HOW THEY GOT THAT WAY (2013, p. 164):
[start]
What did it mean, then, that respected U.S. education leaders and professors in teacher colleges were indoctrinating young teachers with the mindset that poverty trumped everything? What did it mean if teachers were led to believe that they could only be expected to do so much, and that poverty was usually destiny?
[end]
There is so much wrong just with this one small paragraph that I confess I couldn’t cover any but a small part of it.
But let me point out just a smidgeon: this is but a reformulation of the lazy LIFO experienced & expensive teacher who won’t bring out the good stuff unless there is put in place the carrots-and-sticks of rheephorm like VAM and merit pay and no job protections and fire-at-will employment. *For another way of putting it, see Anthony Cody’s THE EDUCATOR AND THE OLIGARCH (2014).*
This is solely the product of a self-imposed Rheeality Distortion Field. The generality she is making is a powerful justification for self-styled “education reform” and it is based on a lie.
Leave aside my own experiences in public schools as a student, knowing folks on a personal basis that worked in public schools, etc. Just focus on this: I was a bilingual and SpecED TA, so I got to work with a great many teachers and see them in action. For all the good, bad and indifferent qualities of the teachers I worked with, Ripley’s description is of truly Homeric proportions:
“I didn’t lie, I was writing fiction with my mouth.”
And that’s Homer SIMPSON, not the old dead Greek guy!
How can any teacher or other public school staff or supporter, viewed through the distorting prism of rheephorm as succinctly and well stated by Ms. Ripley, have any credibility to begin with?
Just my dos centavitos worth…
😎
I understand your concerns, and don’t disagree for the most part. However, two points.
The first is that “reformers” are not all the same. They have a variety of motives and experiences, and some of them are sincere in wanting to improve education, even if they don’t know how and end up doing the wrong things. Take Rhee’s “students first.” I do not know her deepest motives, or her personal history that might have spawned this idea (Perhaps she had a lot of uncaring teachers throughout her own schooling). But I can say that this is a case of “good concept — bad implementation.” What if we acknowledged that we should put students first, but in the same breath tactfully showed Michelle that her implementation is incorrect? Would she be more likely to consider our point of view in turn? I don’t know much about Michelle in particular, she was just an example and may not be affected at all by this, but people in general are more likely to rethink a position if we acknowledge their concerns. I don’t believe it’s the best option to abandon all hope for credibility just because “reformer group doesn’t care.” We should still do the right things that will build up our credibility whenever possible — if not for the “reformers,” then for the public. It won’t reach everyone, sure, especially those in the game for profit. But it will reach some.
My second point: Do we teachers have something to learn from our “enemy” Michelle Rhee? There are certainly many teachers and schools out there who put “students first.” But there are many who don’t. Despite her misguided solutions, does she have a point? Why does she think that way… is it because she saw a real problem? Can we use that observation to improve ourselves and our institutions?
If an educator finds that in order to stay sane and carry on, they must completely dismiss people such as VirginiaSGP, Michelle Rhee, and Bill Gates — then maybe that’s what that person must do. But I don’t know if it helps the cause, and it’s not the only way. As an educator, I’m always willing to offer people the opportunity to learn and change. Even my enemies. Let me talk to Bill Gates for a few hours, and I’ll try my damnedest to show him a better way. In fact, Anthony Cody’s book “Educator and the Oligarch” is about reaching out to those who may have good intentions, but are not listening. Maybe Cody’s attempt worked to change something, or maybe it didn’t. But I don’t think we should stop trying. I believe -some- of these “reformers” are like children. They simply do not understand, and will grow better given love and patience… rather than hatred and dismissal.
Ed Detective, when I see a reformer express the least bit of curiosity about all the kids who disappear from high-performing charter schools I will believe that there is a single reformer out there interested in anything other than promoting themselves without any real interest in the children failed by charter schools whom they refuse to acknowledge exist. The fact that most of those kids at low-income speaks volumes.
When I see a reformer acknowledging that the charter schools that keep all their kids have results about as “bad” or “good” as the public schools, I will believe that they care about the kids as opposed to promoting themselves and getting a high salary from Gates et al.
When I see a reformer express the least bit of curiosity as to why 20% of 5 and 6 year olds who are very poor but all have very committed parents are suspended from certain charter schools instead of enabling such reprehensible actions, I will believe that they care about something other than promoting their own selves.
Perhaps some of them are good at fooling themselves that they are really in it “for the kids”. If they were, they would be demanding investigations as to where all the disappearing kids are going.
Their silence, yes even of the “best” reformers, is deafening. Some of them post on here and pretend that a neighborhood public school gets far more money than it does because the kids in the neighborhood school get charged for the huge bureaucracy that allows many charter schools to treat their kids like dirt until they leave. Shameful.
NYC public school parent-
Again, I mostly agree… however, not everyone with an idea to “reform” schools is in it for the money. Another group to consider is parents. Many parents would like for public schools to “improve,” and some have their own ideas about what that entails. They may or may not be right about what would be “better,” but some of them are doing it because they truly care about students. People were trying to “reform” school for the entire 20th century, long before the profession came under “attack” as we know it. I can’t write off so many complaints.
Parents are parents. Please don’t confuse us with “reformers”.
Having attended far too many PTA meetings, I can tell you that parents do want better schools and have different ideas of how to get there. But the biggest thing ALL parents want is HONESTY. The reformers and Arne Duncan are dishonest. We know it and while some parents are willing to trade that dishonesty for a chance to get away from the underfunding schools that are falling apart and overcrowded (thanks to those selfsame “reformers” making sure their budgets are cut to the bone) it doesn’t mean that charter parents are not well aware of the lies. They often admit it: “we are in charters to get away from THOSE kids”….
Arne Duncan: instead of listening to parents’ concern about the over reliance on testing he accused parents of being afraid their kids were dumb and not wanting to accept that. Does he HONESTLY think that? I doubt it or he would be attacking the self-same Lab School and his wife for working with such fearful parents who are paying $40,000 a year because they are terrified of having their kid tested with the state tests. I don’t believe for a moment he could be that stupid, but perhaps I am wrong and it is pure stupidity instead of dishonesty on his part. I doubt it.
Reformers: Will never ever address the fact of how many at-risk kids are going missing at the best charter schools. Perhaps they could be honest and say “hey, we aren’t for all kids and the ones who struggle don’t belong here” but of course, that would show how much their arguments to be better are pure hogwash, since every public school that weeds out the kids they don’t want has even better results, and that’s without doing the kind of damage that those no-excuses charter schools do. Did you ever hear of BASIS Charter School? That is the model the charter schools really covet — to have such high standards that most kids won’t even apply and once they are there, will quickly leave once they realize that learning Algebra in 6th grade is only for the best and the brightest and of course, the cheapest to teach.
It’s sad that the compliant press has allowed reformers to get away with some of the most blatant lies this side of the “Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons” debate. Someday the education reporters will be as embarrassed as Judith Miller finally was.
In St. Louis……I am challenging the powers that be…….tell me my stats are wrong or go ahead and brag about your success in running the most vulnerable out of town. They answer sensibly…..not a word. Christine Byers is the author…it is about what is probably an insignificant drop in crime over a two month period. “Christine Byers–I ask your help because I am studying some statistics, and I might not be interpreting them correctly. This site is my source: http://stlcin.missouri.org/census/cen_city_comp.cfm
I am pretty sure that these figures are close to accurate: The population of St. Louis was 348,189 in 2000. In 2010, it was 319,294, a drop of 8.3 percent.
The population of those under 5 was 23,477 in 2000, and 21,089 in 2010, a drop of 10.2 percent. Those from 10-14 numbered 25,014 in 2000, and 16,911 in 2010, a drop of 32.4%. Is it unfair to say—–the population drop in st. louis, close to 29,000 included 10,000 citizens under the age of 15? Presumably, it would be necessary to add a lot of parents to those numbers…..the kids did not just wander into Ferguson and Clayton and Park Hills on their own. I do not know how much the numbers might have changed due to birth control methods, including abortions. Also notable…..the percentage of decline in male population was 5.7%, but the population of females declined 10.6%. I want to point to a story which might or might not be related..from less than a week ago.”
http://www.stltoday.com/…/article_afe18374-28b0-5089… Is it coincidence that “Enrollment loss in St. Louis schools compounds problems”, or is it a logical extension of trends? I view the public schools as something which went through a decade of abuse, the first decade of this century, and that is just a narrow point of view which should be easy to deflect. Roberti, the abandonment of democracy when the wrong people were elected, the increase in charter schools in which parents who have the time dedication can get their kids chosen, and that last number…..10.6 female decline. Single mothers of the children who left? I have to wonder what percentage were special needs, whose schools were closed, making longer distances to just arrive every day. Would it not be a responsible choice to move to the county where there is a special school district serving all districts?
I welcome any pointers in sorting all this out as accurately as possible, whether using hard numbers, or subjective perceptions.
I hope you can understand what I posted about this somewhere else….”I was really walking a tightrope with this stuff…..I could be attacked for sterotyping the people who I think have been systematically given a sheet deal….”
Reblogged this on Politicians Are Poody Heads and commented:
It seems to be all of a piece in our country right now. And I don’t care if you are a Democrat or a Republican.
Privatization is the answer! Unions are bad! That’s the all-too-frequent thinking.
This is happening in our education system, in our prisons (privatized prisons? Yes, really, and they aren’t helping, either), the push to privatize Social Security and Medicare, the push to complete the privatization of our Post Office.
I’m certainly not saying that there aren’t problems in some of our public schools. But most of those problems have a whole lot to do with the lack of resources for those schools, and the profound problems of poverty and social inequality in this country.
What if the Waltons, the Gates Foundation, and the others, threw their respources into doing something about poverty, poor neighborhoods, and the poor schools in those neighborhoods?
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 12, 2015 at 11:58 am……..I guess i had better think about what i wrote, and what could possibly have been wrong. I posted it at Peter Greene’s site, and it was removed……I thought it helped drive home the points he was making.
Not sure what would have happened there– I only remove my inevitable spam every morning. It’s always possible I made a mistake, but I don’t generally remove comments because I disagree with them.
Off topic, but why hasn’t the NPE or the NPE Fund filed any IRS Form 990 disclosures? They’ve existed for two or three years, right?
FLERP,
NPE has filed for both 501 (c)3 and 501 c(4) Status. We await IRS approval. Meanwhile, we operate as a program of Voices for Children, Tucson, which is 501 (c) 3. We are working with good lawyers.
Thanks.
St. Louis is absolutely amazing in its absolute refusal to examine education issues….when they do, they accept a lot of the reform stuff as taken for granted truths. I keep posting a steady stream of material to fight back, and Peter and Diane are both major sources for me, both directly, and through links to what they recommend. I think it was probably my computer glitch in posting on Peter’s blog, and puzzled impatience at this site. I worry that I hurt the people I admire more than I help sometimes….I do believe that a look at population changes in urban areas might show shocking results about what is not front page news…..vulnerable families leaving one at a time, because of the results of charter cherry picking which limits the choices…….and an ugly underside…..that those in power know, but do not brag about demographic changes which might seem to serve their purposes.