Jan Resseger worked as a social justice leader for the United Church of Christ until her retirement. She is an ardent supporter of public education and lives in Cleveland. In this post, she eloquently describes the education platform that Democrats should adopt. No advocacy for “high quality charters” or “high academic standards,” but advocacy for children, for democracy, and for a better education for all.
This is how she begins:
Introduction A comprehensive system of public education, that serves all children and is democratically governed, publicly funded, universally accessible, and accountable to the public, is central to the common good. Historically it has been the role of the 50 states to establish and implement a fair system of funding and regulating public education; of local school districts to share the responsibility for funding and to administer the schools in their localities; and of the federal government to protect the civil rights of our nation’s children by ensuring that schools serve all groups of children—children of every race, ethnicity, economic level—and ensuring that schools serve children with special needs— children with disabilities and children learning English.
A just and good society balances individualism with the needs of the community. Likewise public schools are intended to serve the needs of particular children and at the same time to serve our society by preparing citizens to participate actively in our democracy. Today, our society has moved too far in the direction of promoting individual self-interest at the expense of community responsibility. The result has been the abandonment of the common good. While some may suggest that the sum total of individual choices will automatically constitute the needs of society, there is no evidence that individual choices based on self-interest will protect the vulnerable or provide the safeguards and services needed by the whole population. As a matter of justice, our society must strive always to expand the individual rights guaranteed by government for those who have lacked rights and recognize the important role of government for providing public services on behalf of the community.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Well written! Our rhetoric had gone way off course with the language of ‘choice’. Thanks for balancing community with individual ‘rights’.
Hillary Clinton:
“Rather than starting from ideology let’s start from what’s best for our kids.”
Is the ed reform agenda “what’s best for our kids”? Can there be a real public debate about that or have all of these decisions been made?
What if my objections aren’t ideological? Hasn’t she just effectively ended any debate by characterizing all objections as invalid and not what’s “best for kids”?
If objections to ed reform are categorically “not what’s best for kids” then no criticism is valid, right? She’ll just announce “best” and if I want what’s best for kids I will agree. if I don’t agree I don’t want what’s best for kids.
Is the ed reform agenda “what’s best for our kids”?
The 21st century reform agenda summary:
Harder, more rigorous math and ELA classes
Harder, more rigorous math and ELA tests
Narrowed curriculum
Narrowed opportunities
De-professionalizing the teaching profession
Charters
Personalized learning/testing
And this is the best we can offer a generation of students?
This alternative DNC platform should be sent to the DNC. The gap between what is stated here and Hillary’s support for “public charters,” explains why she was booed at the NEA. The DNC needs to understand they are out of touch with the majority of NEA and AFT membership. Teachers are sick and tired of being used as a political punching bag. The Democratic party needs to get in touch with the consequences of what they support. The typical teacher wants the Democratic party to stop selling their souls to corporate interests and stand up for justice, equity, human rights and strong public education. By the way, if they are smart, they will change course, and hire Ms. Resseger as a policy or speech writer. If the DNC continues to follow the money while ignoring much of its base, it could cost them the election.
As another retired teacher, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Very sadly, it’s not only the corporate-bought DNC that is out of touch, it’s also the leadership of the NEA and AFT. Jan has been articulate and passionate about truly authentic teaching/learning for all children in public schools for many years. Her well reasoned, sane, and life-affirming platform is an antidote to the callous, technological, data-driven, and disengaging juggernaut of corporate reform, that crushes children’s and teachers’ souls, squelches their voices, and fuels an arms-race of ed tech schlock. Our children are not human capital for multi-national corporations to exploit. They are unique treasures. As Jonathan Kozol wrote, “Instead of seeing these children for the blessings that they are, we are measuring them only by the standard of whether they will be future deficits or assets for our nation’s competitive needs.”
RageAgainstTheTetsocracy
July 6, 2016 at 9:47 am
Is the ed reform agenda “what’s best for our kids”?
The 21st century reform agenda summary:
I know this isn’t a popular opinion here, and of course I could be wrong, but I don’t have any problem with national standards. I’m not a federalist and I don’t think there’s any intrinsic worth to “Ohio standards” versus “NY standards”. My son’s math teacher was using materials from EngageNY and I thought “good for him”. They probably gave him nothing to work with when they dumped the Common Core on us and NY’ers were nice enough to pay for it, so it’s fine with me. We were using “Singapore math” anyway and that seems to my admittedly untrained eye just like “Common Core math”.
I think the English is dead-dry and joyless though. They managed to suck all the pleasure out of reading anything. My husband is convinced lawyers wrote it. It’s weirdly legalistic- like legal analysis.
I’ve been telling my kid to stick it out and not lose hope – reading is not actually horrible and grim 🙂
I don’t oppose well written standards either. Please understand that standards, by-and-large, are a moot issue. Especially in ELA; math standards have been relatively unchanged for decades, all CC did was to push them down a grade or two; the deep understanding piece was just a bunch of hype.
Pre-NCLB standards, in any subject, were manifested in the form of “the TEXTBOOK”. Leaving teachers plenty of wiggle room (autonomy). After all, knowing the fundamental topics in any subject, biology or US History for example, is simply not that complex for any certified teacher. For every new teacher, the TEXTBOOK became their guidebook for instruction.
NCLB/RTTT/CCSS standards in math and ELA were manifested in the form of “the TEST”. Under RTT/CC the pressure on individual teachers to produce test scores became the chief driver of classroom dynamics. Much less wiggle room, much less interesting. Now for almost every teacher, the TEST became the guidebook for instruction.
So it’s no so much the standards, but how the policy makers decide they will become instruction and activities in the classroom.
Always appreciate your comments here. Keep on riding the echo chamber of reform. They deserve all your best shots.
Let me clarify regarding ELA standards. The traditional language arts curriculum that focused on reading (especially literature) for enjoyment and enlightenment along with (creative) writing, was supplanted by a much narrower approach to reading (close) and writing (supporting evidence). hence the much drier approach your own children are bored with.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?411163-1/democratic-platform-drafting-committee-holds-platform-hearing-orlando
CSpan will be broadcasting hearings on the democratic platform. You can sign up for an online notification of the time here.
“RageAgainstTheTetsocracy
July 6, 2016 at 10:32 am
I don’t oppose well written standards either. Please understand that standards, by-and-large, are a moot issue. Especially in ELA; math standards have been relatively unchanged for decades, all CC did was to push them down a grade or two; the deep understanding piece was just a bunch of hype.”
Thanks for the explanation. The bottom line for me with the CC was I don’t trust them to not make it all about the test and they didn’t disappoint- it’s all about the test.
The higher income parents in my school (about half) make it all about the test too. They use the single digit Common Core test number in the same way they use ACT scores- as a reductive single measure. There’s no “nuance” in this. They seize on the number because a number is easier and offers (false) certainty. That was so predictable. I have had ambitious fellow public school parents here ask me if my son is a “3 or a 4”. I tell them he’s “a 13” as in “years old” 🙂
Hillary Clinton received a chorus of boos when she spoke favorably about charter schools in her July 5 speech at the National Education Association meeting. Even though she has the NEA endorsement, that doesn’t mean she will get the votes of the rank-and-file NEA members unless she makes a firm stand that charter schools must become genuine public schools that are run by publicly-elected boards and must file the same rigorous public-domain financial statements that genuine public schools file. Otherwise, she is just going to give us more of the same: Non-public charter schools taking public tax money and spending it with virtually no oversight so that much of the public’s tax money ends up in private wallets.
The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that charter schools aren’t genuine public schools because they are run by private boards not elected by the public. And charter schools don’t file rigorous public-domain audited financial reports like genuine public schools file. So, the Court ruled, charter schools are not entitled to receive public tax money.
That’s a reasonable ruling and one that should be sought in every state in our nation. So, why aren’t there court cases in every state? Why?
And when will this question, and other questions around the blatant misuse of public tax money, get to the Supreme Court?
Let us hope there are a couple of more liberals sitting there when it does.