Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

John Thompson has a good article at Huffington Post asking why President Obama did a “Nixon-to-China” maneuver with education.

That phrase “Nixon-to-China” comes up again and again, and Thompson makes a telling point: It describes a political decision, not an education policy. The President’s education policy is indeed very little different from that of the GOP. As Thompson puts it, “It is a political gamble designed to beat up on two of the Democrats’ most loyal constituencies, teachers and families with children in urban schools, to show the “Billionaires Boys Club” that the administration could be tough on its friends.”

Is this a wise political strategy? “Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s “reforms” opened the door to Scott Walker’s and John Kasich’s attacks on collective bargaining. Worse, Duncan and President Obama mostly stayed silent as workers fought back in Wisconsin and Ohio. Had the administration joined with workers, perhaps the Wisconsin recall election would have been won. Regardless, if the administration remains silent in Chicago, fed-up teachers could stay home in droves. That would be a case of chopping our noses to spite our faces, but it would be understandable if teachers allowed our outrage to rule.”

Hopefully, the President has told the Mayor to settle, and to do so without humiliating the teachers.

But the question will remain: Why is the Obama administration wedded to the carrot-and-stick policies of the GOP? Why is it so devoted to handing public schools over to private management despite the lack of evidence that private managers in non-union schools are more successful than public ones?

A reader responds to a post that contained advice from Margaret Haley, written almost a century ago:

It’s truly amazing how little has changed in America’s fundamental view of education in the past century.  Despite all the changes in the outward trappings of schooling, i.e., technology and science, we keep clinging to the fantasy that schools are factories that produced “educated” children; and that education can be managed like any other business:  Teachers became factory workers, children became workpieces or products, and administrators became floor bosses and executives.  All of this was done in the name of “efficiency”, which really meant “on the cheap”, and reduced the idea of education to little more than test taking.  The few who tried to remind the nation of what a real education looked like were shouted down by the industrialists and financiers and the popular press that fawned over the captains of industry and fanning the flames of discord among the general population.  

So, if our business leaders are now dissatisfied with the quality of education they have no one to blame by themselves.  Of course they can’t do that, since that would mean exposing the whole failure of the idea of “managed education”.  Also, they now no longer want to lower their taxes; they want to start taking tax revenues themselves.  So, again we return to the same invectives and lies that worked so well a century ago.

We desperately need a real debate in America about a definition of public education that supports our democracy, provides a strong foundation for adult success, and can be reliably supported by the public.  Sadly, we continue to move forward into the past.

This Chicago teacher sees a sinister motive in the avalanche of hostility to teachers. Teachers were always considered admirable even though teaching was not well paid and not very prestigious. But these days, teachers have become “enemies,” who soak up money and do little work, who get “paid for breathing” and “tenure for life.” None of this is true. This teacher sees a dark side:

The teacher bashing was key to changing public perception about teachers because in order to squeeze money out of cash-strapped districts, you have to cut personnel. It certainly was unfair and hurt, but it was just a tactic in a larger war to privatize a public good.

This is about Rupert Murdoch’s Wireless Generation and Apple iPads delivering online tests 4 or more times a year to every child K-12 in Chicago. And re-selling student data to CPS to evaluate every teacher.

This is about a brutal teacher eval methodology based on junk science. It is imposed at the same time as tough common core tests that most believe children will do poorly on. And all to provide an excuse to fire roughly 6,000 CPS teachers and vastly increase class sizes.

This is about remaking the 3rd largest school district in the nation as a scalable market for Rupert Murdoch’s and Apple’s benefit. This is about hedge fund managers placing their bets on these companies getting huge contracts in the largest school districts — that is why they have flooded Chicago with tv and radio ads demonizing teachers.

And this is about Democrats raising billions of dollars in campaign funding.

Jan Carr, an author of children’s books, is a dedicated public school parent. She wrote a post wondering why the powerful elites in our society are so obsessed with testing and data. She wondered why they care so little for developing critical thinking.

Jan wrote: “I’ve been a scrappy public school mom for 12 years and counting, and I’ve watched the increasing encroachment of the data and accountability business, which would have our kids prepping for and taking deadening tests at every turn, and our teachers endlessly graded and derided for test results that are a meaningless distraction from real learning. A rich and full education digs deeper; it’s inextricably entwined with books, literature, writing, and the life of the mind; it develops critical thinking.”

I read her latest post and asked Mike Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute to respond to it. I have known Mike for many years, and I hold out hope that someday he too will evolve and renounce the reforms he now champions. I think this will happen when his own children encounter them, as Jan Carr’s did.

I invite readers to comment on this discussion.

This is Mike’s commentary:

Dear Ms. Carr,

I enjoyed reading your post about critical thinking; it sounds like you and your son have been lucky to have had some very talented teachers.

l’ve never met Bill Gates, or Eli Broad, or Michael Bloomberg, or Rupert Murdoch; I can’t speak for what lies in their hearts. But I find it very unlikely that they don’t want children to “think critically” because they want to produce a generation of drones. I know that sort of rhetoric is common on the left (including from the late Howard Zinn) but to believe it you have to also believe that Barack Obama, the late Ted Kennedy, the liberal icon George Miller, and countless other liberal supporters of education reform are also out to unplug our children’s minds. That doesn’t pass the “critical thinking” test.

What motivates these folks, as I understand it, is an earnest belief that in today’s knowledge economy, the only way poor kids are going to have a shot at escaping inter-generational poverty is to gain the knowledge, skills, and character strengths that will prepare them to enter and complete some sort of post-secondary education–the pathway to the middle class. And that while reading and math scores don’t come close to measuring everything that counts, they do measure skills that have been linked to later success in college, the workplace, and life.

I suspect that all of these men would like to see students engaged in more of the kind of critical thinking that you describe, and that’s one reason many support the move to the more rigorous “Common Core” standards for English Language Arts and math. The ELA standards, in particular, are designed to push students toward this sort of complex thinking.

The testing movement has caused a lot of harm, I agree, in terms of narrowing the curriculum and encouraging bad teaching. Moving to better standards and tests is one way to address that. But by throwing out the baby with the bathwater we risk going back to the days when poor and minority kids were held to very low expectations–and their achievement plateaued as a result.

In the last two decades, poor and minority kids have made two grade levels of progress in reading and math, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The hope–and it’s really only a hypothesis at this point–is that those greater math and reading skills will help a generation of kids do much better in college and the real world than they otherwise would have. The question for educators and reformers is: How do we keep the good that’s come from testing and accountability while eliminating the bad?

Mike Petrilli

Listen to an excellent panel discussion, featuring the brilliant Dissent writer Joanne Barkan. She is the author of “Got Dough: How Billionaires Rule Our Schools,” which you should read.

Karran Harper Royal is a leader of Parents Across America.

She lives in New Orleans, where she went to public schools. Her child attends a charter school.

She spoke at the SOS 2012 meeting in Washington, where she analyzed why some African American leaders and civil rights figures got on the wrong side of education reform.

The video was made by Norm Scott, retired NYC teacher, leader of the Grassroots Education Movement, and producer of the celebrated film “The Inconvenient Truth Behind ‘Waiting for Superman.'”

The New York Times has a good debate about the Chicago strike.

Eva Moskowitz and Michael Petrilli take the anti-union view.

Brian Jones, Carol Burris, and Pauline Lipman explain why the teachers’ strike is important in the fight against bad education policies that hurt children and teachers and ruin education.

A reader sent this today:

Interview of Chris Hedges today by Amy Goodman.  Opens with comments on Chicago teacher strike, as excerpted below:
 

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, you know, the tactic is clear. And, you know, the secretary of education, Duncan, is behind it. And that is essentially the stripping away of—you know, of qualified teachers. We’re watching it in New York. You know, the mayor of New York is very much a part of this effort. The assault on the New York City teachers’ union is as egregious as the assault against the Chicago Teachers Union.

And it really boils down to the fact that we spend $600-some billion a year, the federal government, on education, and the corporations want it. That’s what’s happening. And that comes through charter schools. It comes through standardized testing. And it comes through breaking teachers’ unions and essentially hiring temp workers, people who have very little skills. This is what Teach for America is about. They teach by rote, and they earn nothing. There’s no career.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/11/chris_hedges_on_9_11_touring

 

Sabrina Stevens answers the question here.

Who worked to get children out of the factories and into school?

Who worked for a shorter work day for women?

Who worked to help poor people enter the middle class?

Not the Wall Street hedge fund managers.

Not the equity investors.

Not the big corporations.

One guess.

The real difference between the CTU and Mayor Rahm Emanuel is not money. By all accounts, the union and the mayor are close on compensation.

The real differences are about the corporate reform agenda. The mayor wants merit pay, more charters, evaluation of teachers by test scores, and all the other components of the national corporate reform agenda.

But little noticed by the national media is that none of these so-called reforms works or has any evidence to support it. Merit pay has failed wherever it was tried. Teacher evaluation by student test scores is opposed by the majority of researchers, and practical experience with it has led to confusion and uncertainty about whether student scores can identify the best and worst teachers. The charters in Chicago and elsewhere do not get better test scores than the regular public schools. Even in Detroit, only 6 of 25 charter high schools got better scores than the much-lamented Detroit public schools.