John Thompson says we used to disagree, but he has come around. My memory is not what it used to be, but I recall that he took issue with my use of the term “corporate reformers.” He used to think that the “reformers” were trying to help and just needed the hand of friendship extended to them. Now he thinks otherwise.
He knows that I tried to meet Bill Gates when I visited Seattle. My requests were always rebuffed. There are just so many times you can try without getting a message that the meeting will happen never.
He ponders in this post whether I hurt reformers’ feelings and whether I should care.
Ravitch acknowledged that “reformers say I am ‘mean’ or ‘harsh’ when I say that some ‘reformers’ have a profit motive or that their grand plans actually hurt poor minority children instead of helping them.” She had been told, “Bill Gates was very hurt by my comments about his effort to remake American education. He frankly could not understand how anyone could question his good intentions.” But Ravitch had never questioned his intentions, even though she “certainly question[s] his judgment and his certainty that he can ‘fix’ education by creating metrics to judge teachers.”
Ravitch confessed to being less worried about the Billionaires Boys Club’s feelings than their “constant repetition of the blatant lie that American public education is a failure.” She said, “Dear reformers, please know that I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. I just wanted to let you know that your efforts to create a dual system of publicly funded schools turns back the clock to the shameful era before the Brown decision.”
And Ravitch “wanted you to know that your reliance on standardized testing is a grand mistake.” She opposed reforms mostly based on the edu-philanthropists’ theories, and wanted them to realize “your speculative plans are not ‘hurting the feelings’ of teachers and principals, they are ruining their careers, ruining their reputations, doing real and tangible damage to the lives of real people.”
John comments with his own insights:
Communicating with representatives of the nation’s elites, I learned that most of the pro-reform experts realized that something had gone terribly wrong. Although few agreed the huge body of evidence showing that their movement had taken terrible inner city schools and made them worse, most admitted that it had not produced very many positive changes. Some of the poorest students had been helped and others had been hurt. And reformers often knew that they had had far more success driving veteran teachers out of schools than in finding replacements.
I was not completely wrong in believing we could start a dialogue. A bipartisan coalition was making Oklahoma one of the first states to undo the worst education policy of the era: the use of test scores in teacher evaluations. But I was mostly wrong and Ravitch was right. The Billionaires Boys Club merely adopted a kinder, gentler public relations spin. Then, schools were further undermined by budget cuts, and the exodus of experienced teachers, leaving public education even more vulnerable.
So, we need a new round of the type of conversations that I’ve tried, while heeding Ravitch’s hard-earned wisdom.
When will people accept that we are at war? I don’t mean with Russia or Iran or North Korea. I mean with the people who own our alleged democracy.such as Bill Gates and his ilk (yes, ilk). These people have no good intentions. They are out to suck out every drop of profit wherever they can find it. They’re reduced to sucking it out of public institutions and poor people now – that’s how low they’ve gone. You can’t reason with these people. No “conversations” are possible. When someone has their boot on your neck, their feelings should not be your concern.
And it was ever thus. That is, big money does what big money does, preserve its accumulation and grow more, by whatever means available. If illegal means, you have to enforce laws. Repeal half the laws & the money grows faster, still extending into illegal realms unless stopped by enforcement.
It’s like water management: if you don’t divert the streams when required, you get swamps. Stop re-building dams and levees, and you get floods. I’m not sure the language of war even applies: we are witnessing the inevitable results of peeling back the legislative “trammeling” of once-better-regulated capitalism: big money has grown so big it is dictating govt policy over the voice of voters.
Reclaiming democracy requires extreme public pressure on representatives to put appropriate legislation in place. US voters need to re-find their voice through large civil protest. Failing that, on-the-ground riots, perhaps even war is foreseeable, w/results uncertain.
“They are out to suck out every drop of profit wherever they can find it.” YES: the world of falling prey to the modern day richy rich means that the richy rich will seek out money for personal gain wherever it may lie.
Long before we arrived at our current destination in school “reform,” Diane predicted what would happen, She rejected testing long before we saw the noxious impact it has on young people, schools and teachers. She predicted the rise of corporate and billionaire leadership in privatization. She is a bold, prescient scholar, and that is why she is so widely read and respected.
As far as a sit down with Gates to talk about evidence, I am not holding my breath. There is no evidence supporting the value of privatization or rigged standardized testing. Gates is a manipulative egotist. He cares about being viewed as a philanthropist. He wants to be perceived as a generous benefactor. Actions speak louder than cash. Gates has weaponized his wealth, inserted himself into policy to promote privatization, testing, rating and ranking teachers and various personalized and blended platforms. Gates hates public schools and their democratic management. He feels we peons should yield to our wealthy “betters.” Of course, he is the supreme better. Gates is an anti-democratic elitist that wants to reshape education for other people’s children, and nobody voted for him.
Amen
“The Billionaires Boys Club merely adopted a kinder, gentler public relations spin.”
To some extent. On standardized testing and common “standards,” they’ve gotten what they wanted. The nation remains under the oppressive federal testing mandate, and almost all states are using some version of the puerile Gates/Coleman Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic]. Many are stilll using some version of school grading and VAM. The Deformers are losing on charters, thanks to the great work of Diane Ravitch, NPE, and other members of the Resistance, but they’ve turned their attention to the creation of voucher systems disguised as “tax credits” and “academic scholarships.”
Here’s how to make some real progress on Ed Deform: End the federal requirement for high-stakes standardized testing, which is a cancer on our schools, crowding out and replacing healthy tissue and consuming necessary resources. The testing has utterly failed to achieve the results the Deformers claimed it would. It hasn’t improved outcomes, and it hasn’t closed achievement gaps. But it has completely distorted our curricula and pedagogy; made school into a horrific, stressful experience for kids; and fostered industries of invalid student, teacher, and school evaluation. THESE WILL REMAIN UNTIL THE TESTING IS STOPPED!!!
We need massive resistance to the testing. We need for the teachers’ unions to call, unequivocally, for for an immediate and total end to the federal testing mandate. We need this call from teacher leaders to be loud and clear. We need one or two brave state legislatures to say No to the testing. And we need national days of standardized testing protest in the streets.
Right on, Robert. Annual standardized testing is the Achilles’ heel of ed-deform: data pours in annually proving that despite its expense it does nothing to improve ed no matter how tortuously its scores are manipulated—and without it, deformers have zilch, no basis for recommending nada. Cut that beanstalk down, & the giant falls to his death.
Exactly. Where are our unions on this? They have to make this their foremost policy position. Your analogy is spot on. Killing the high-stakes standardized testing will kill deform. Until we do that, we get nowhere. Everything the deformers are trying to do is predicated on keeping that testing in place.
Shepherd: “Exactly. Where are our unions on this?”
There are, on pp 70-71, notes from an interview with the Providence Teachers’ Union president, but it’s disappointingly brief and void of much substance. Doesn’t even begin to address most of the issues raised regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement on pp. 41-43, 51-52, 62-63, etc.
If I understand correctly, the most recent agreement was negotiated between the Mayor and PTU without any participation by the School Superintendent.
Reading the report now, Stephen.
I’d be curious whether Diane, John, Bob and others could read a substantial chunk of this week’s report on Providence district schools:
Click to access PPSD-REVISED-FINAL-002.pdf
and explain whether they believe reform is needed and, if so, of what kind?
My own impression is that Providence would, for example, benefit from Jack Schneider’s and Bob Shepherd’s assistance in school and student assessment and Cory Booker’s help in raising a ton of money most of which would be spent on educators’ salaries, while striving to retain those superb teachers oft-praised in the report and making it easier to not retain the teachers who are not currently well suited to their task. Adding charters to the mix if careful review indicates any selected CMO is highly capable, and if it proves impossible for the public to negotiate successfully with the powerful 501(c)(5) corporation that holds such sway currently. While aggressively expanding partnerships with local universities and nonprofits.
What shines through the Providence report is that the city and state have been negligent in their duty to support equal educational opportunity in Providence public schools.
Just a parent & teacher here, but read the report with interest. Diane has cut to the chase incisively. But these are my layman’s observations.
Sadly, priority #1 is not met– safety: “widespread agreement that bullying, demeaning, and even physical violence are occurring within the school walls at very high levels, particularly at the middle and high school levels.” This is ground zero. In a family environment where physical safety is threatened, children do not socialize normally [let alone learn]: everyone is in survival mode. School is no different. If students can’t trust the adults to keep them safe, they will not be learning from them.
“Parents are marginalized and demoralized”—echoed by: “Educators report a lack of agency and input into decisions at their schools and classrooms” and “Principals and other school leaders repeatedly reported that they are held accountable for results that they have neither resources nor authority to influence” This is a structural organization issue that seems to be present to some degree in many schools today. A dead giveaway for a top-down system where goals are formulated & sanctions meted out several degrees remotely from school-level, and completely divorced from parents/ voters. A direct result of state takeovers & NCLB et al top-down micromanaging accountability systems.
Running an organization in this fashion undercuts the benefits of bureaucratic hierarchy. No one will gain from the innovative ideas of anyone in the levels between state operators & students. They’re all reduced to bean-counters & enforcers in service to people they never met, w/goals & implementation plans to which they have no input. Why would parents even get onboard, clearly their input counts for nothing.
The crime (reflecting Diane’s point) is that it’s the schools in poor areas that most need collaboration and innovation to counter the stiff challenge to educating poverty-stricken students, as well as active reachout to and involvement of parents. In wealthy districts like mine in central NJ, state actors can’t get away with this sort of manhandling, because those paying high RE taxes have clout: so we get collaboration and innovation, and vocal involvement of parents and voters—they don’t.
I happened upon a Bernie Sanders oped in the Wall Street Journal this am–a freebie where I have breakfast. His oped was an exercise in trying to defang the word Socialism. He repeatedly referred to Corporate Socialism, with a series of paragraphs to illustrate his point–the bank bailout, the auto-industry bail out, the medical care system rigged to yield huge profits for Big Pharma and insurance companies, and so on. We are familiar with the expression “corporate welfare.” Nobody in power will repeat that phrase. The deflection is usually linked to the jobs created and wonders of innovation in a deregulated environment.
In any case I will be listening for the “corporate socialism” phrase in tonight’s showcase of presidential candidates. Democrats are really afraid of anyone who questions the idea of free markets, yet it is quite clear that markets are rigged, and especially so with this Republican administration, once screaming cheerleaders for debt reduction, now totally indifferent to that issue.
Repugnican Devil’s Dictionary
Socialism. Government program that benefits ordinary people instead of, primarily, the wealthy
Bernie’s biggest obstacle is overcoming difficulty of the public understanding how he is using the term socialism. He will have a target on his back because of it, particularly among Republicans. Bernie is, of course, using socialism in the same way that the Scandinavian countries understand it. Socialism is a form of collectivism. We have many examples of it in our society as many public services like the mail, education, police and fire protection and even our military. We all pay in and share the service. However, many people socialism is the younger brother of communism. It is a loaded, misunderstood term for many in our culture, particularly for members of the older generation.
Corporate welfare is another issue that perhaps Bernie will get a chance to explain, but the format of the debate makes it difficult for coherent debate on issues. I wish all the candidates well, and I hope Bernie gets a fair platform in the debate. By the way corporate welfare or socialism is costing us more than any of our socialized programs.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/opinion/amazon-hq2-incentives-taxes.html
Bernie’s biggest obstacle is the Democratic Party.
It’s too bad Bernie doesn’t use the term that describes the Scandinavian govts—“social democracies”—which are in fact grounded in capitalism. The government doesn’t own the means of production, nor does a government panel decide who gets what without input of populace. The other Euro countries tho described similarly to ours, are closer to Nordic govts, as they feature very strong organized labor sector.
Is it possible to find a lawyer willing to file a class action court case against Bill Gates and all the other billionaire ed-reformers to get a restraining order to stop them from meddling in our public schools in any way?
The class action case would represent most Americans and their children and grandchildren and all public school teachers vs a list of named billionaire ed-reformers and their minions and/or fake non-profit, tax-sheltered foundations.
It’s funny how they want to make nice
…just so that they can screw people over in a different way.
Do not forget that the motive of the reformers is to destroy the teacher unions because teachers in them are primarily socialist/ communist and anti-capitalist in governing philosophy. The mask the reformers wear is one of improving education, but the fundamental motivation is, as I see it, political: crush the commies wherever one can. Democrats are rightly fearful of being labeled “socialists”; most of the presidential candidates are.
Harlan,
I know many teachers who belong to a union. None of them are socialists or Communists. Could you cite sources or is this just your uninformed opinion?
I do however agree with you that the goal of so-called “reform” is to eliminate teachers unions.
I don’t see how that would change the views of those millions of teachers you claim are Commies. But are not.
Harlan alleges, “Do not forget that the motive of the reformers is to destroy the teacher unions because teachers in them are primarily socialist/ communist and anti-capitalist in governing philosophy.”
Why does Harlan have this ignorant, wrong-headed opinion?
Maybe this piece helps explain why, “Republicans’ deep hatred for teachers can’t be denied and they’re not trying”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/21/republicans-deep-hatred-for-teachers-kasich
First:
I taught for thirty years in one public school district in California and only met one teacher out of hundreds that was “primarily a socialist/communist and anti-capitalist!”
Only one!
That one teacher was sort of like a super hippy out of the 1960s, and he was a nice enough guy that everyone ignored the “few” times he expressed his political views (with an emphasis on “few”).
PE teachers and coaches, history teachers, science and math teachers were more conservative (nowhere close to how extreme the Republican Party has been since Reagan — more like Eisenhower Republicans) than the rest.
The Chicago Tribune: “Teachers leave political views at the schoolhosue gate.”
My experience as a public school teacher supports that headline.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-teachers-politics-met-20161104-story.html
Then there is this: “In a recent New York City case, Weingarten v. Board of Education, a federal district court upheld the school district’s ban on employees wearing political buttons at school. The court relied on a student expression case, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, in which the U.S. Supreme Court established that expression appearing to represent the school can be censored for legitimate pedagogical reasons. The New York court ruled that students might view the political buttons as representing the school if worn by employees. This ruling is consistent with other decisions in which state and federal courts recently have upheld bans on teachers wearing buttons to promote political candidates or to criticize the United States and its involvement in Iraq and Panama.”
http://www.educationupdate.com/archives/2008/DEC/html/col-canemployees.html
According to this piece, there are 79 Democrats for every 21 Republican in teaching. No mention of teachers that are registered, independent voters.
http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/
To put the previous fact in perspective, Brookings.edu reports, “A bit of history is in order. A quarter of a century ago, when President Bill Clinton was in the White House and governing as a “new” Democrat, the Democratic party was not a liberal party. In fact, back then, 25 percent of Democrats regarded themselves as liberal, 25 percent as conservative, and 48 percent as moderate. In contrast, as of 2018, the party’s liberal cohort had doubled to 51 percent, while the conservative share of the party had been cut in half to just 13 percent, and the moderates had shrunk by one-third, to 34 percent.” …
“In 1994, 38 percent of Americans called themselves conservative, compared to 17 percent for liberals. By 2018, the conservative share had declined slightly, to 35 percent, while the liberal share increased by 9 points, to 26 percent. In other words, in the 24 years since Newt Gingrich’s Republican insurgency toppled the Democratic House majority, the conservative edge over liberals shrank from 21 points to just 9 points, the smallest conservative advantage ever recorded.”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/01/11/the-liberal-faction-of-the-democratic-party-is-growing-new-polling-shows/
And that fits with what I know: That most if not all liberals are Demcorats but not all Democrats are liberals.
Gates had his feelings hurt by Diane,s comments ? His push for extensive overblown teacher evaluations has done tremendous harm and undue stress on many hard working teachers. When asked to look at all teachers as good teacher or bad teacher by superintendents and principals- this has really demoralized the profession. Principals are asked by those above – who is not doing so great ? They need to pick somebody- to send to an improvement program. It is a negative approach. Yes there are teachers that need help but administrations are filling quotas to fill these improvement programs and they just have to send someone. So it gets into a personality thing . Do they do this in Finland ? Do they do this in Japan ?