If you want a complete explanation of the CCSS Reformy Master Plan, as well as one more piece of evidence that the CCSS regime is in fact a federal program, you can't do much better than Arne Duncan's speech on November 4, 2010, to UNESCO, "The Vision of Education Reform in the United States."
I recommend you read the whole thing, but if you're in a hurry, or you just enjoy commentary, let me run it down for you.
Introductiony Stuff
UNESCO has been around for many years, and it's a swell group, promoting peace since 1945, when the world was a bit messy. "The promise of universal education was then a lonely beacon--a light to
guide the way to peace and the rebuilding of nations across the globe."
Today the world is no longer recovering from WWII, but education is still a Very Swell Thing. "And in a knowledge economy, education is the new currency by which
nations maintain economic competitiveness and global prosperity."
He has two major messages today about education.
And They Are
"First, the Obama administration has an ambitious and unified theory of action that propels our agenda." It can't be fixed quickly. It will take "a clear, coherent, and coordinated vision of reform."
Second, the President and Duncan reject any notion that ed reform is international zero sum. If some people excell, it's good for everyone. We will grow the economic pie rather than carve it up.
This Is Super Important
We have an unprecedented opportunity to make US education great, which is #1 in national economic boosting. We have "an economic and moral imperative" to fix the gap. 25% of US students don't finish in four years-- and here I interrupt to question the big focus on the four year thing. It's a dumb choice, because it means a kid who fails an entire year and has to repeat, and for whom that experience is a shock and a wake-up call so that he gets his act together and finishes as a strong student-- that kid is considered the same as a kid who just plain drops out. that's dumb.
Duncan also name checks the retired military report that 75% of US grads are unfit for military service because they are dropouts, criminals, or not physically fit. Also, he read that Thomas Friedman says the world is flat, so knowledge etc competition is globally tough.
"In the knowledge economy, opportunities to land a good job are vanishing
fast for young workers who drop out of school or fail to get college
experience." And I'm thinking that sentence should have stopped after "workers," but here we have inserted the belief that corporations would stop outsourcing call center jobs to India if only they could find more Americans with Masters degrees willing to work part time for minimum wage and no benefits.
The President says that the country that out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow, and then offers historical examples of when this has happened in the past--oh no, whoops, I made that last part up. We're just going to go with what, in the CCSS biz, we call "thoughts and feelings with no textual support." Also, all our scientists and PhD's and engineers are immigrants, so that's why we're going to close up the VISA loopholes being used by employers to hire cheap immigrants and why we're also going to start providing real support for the hard sciences in this country instead of making science go begging from corporations. No, sorry, I made up all that last part again.
Duncan observes that we also must collaborate across boundaries. In this new world we can't fix poverty of terrorism by ourselves, but must cooperate with other nations. These international partnerships will require students to do more critical thinking, learn new languages, understand other cultures, and embrace their sense of obligation to the world community. Conservative conspiracy theorists will want to highlight this portion of this speech (delivered to a group of international cooperators).
Here Are Some Goals
The Pres wants us to lead the world in college grads by 2020. Because more college grads = world domination. But don't forget-- "not zero sum." Our world collegiate domination will bring benefits to everybody.
Also, we should get girls into college.
Better educated world = better economics world. Because when you have lots of educated people, lots of high-quality well-paying jobs appear to greet them. Just ask all the degreed 25-year-olds still living in their parents' basements and working at Burger King.
Also, better educated world = safer world. Because ignorance causes violence. That's why, when we led the world in college grads, we never got into wars with anyone. Okay, I made that up. I can't help it. Duncan keeps saying things without offering any evidence or support-- not even anecdotal. I know it's four years late, but I'm still trying to finish this speech for him.
Education is the great equalizer, but when economies improve, the college educated will reap more of the benefits.
Then This Quote Happens
As the author Ben Wildavsky writes in his new book, The Great Brain
Race, in the global economy “more and more people will have the chance .
. . to advance based on what they know rather than who they are.”
And I could spend a whole day discussing how odd I find it to imagine that our knowledge base is somehow separate from who we are as people. But since we're starting with the presumption that education is a transformative commodity and not a human quality, I guess this makes sense. So I'll move on.
And Now For the Creepy Stuff
There have been misconceptions in the cover of President Obama's plans. For instance, his support as a progressive for private charter schools, and his insistence that teachers be evaluated based on student test scores.
Duncan says that the misconception is not that these aren't his actual plans, nor does Duncan try to point out that these ideas have their origins anywhere but the Oval Office. No, the misconception is, apparently, in seeing these as The Plan when in fact they are just the tip of the iceberg. "In fact, these elements are only a modest part of our overall agenda. The President’s aims are far more ambitious."
Test based teacher evaluation = great teacher in every classroom. Growing "school choice" = more innovation.
The North Star guiding the alignment of our cradle-to-career education
agenda is President Obama’s goal that America will once again have the
highest proportion of college graduates in the world.
That goal can only be achieved by creating a strong cradle-to-career
continuum that starts with early childhood learning and extends all the
way to college and careers.
So, cradle to career it is. We will expand pre-K. And we will try to increase access to college. He does not actually add "and make a huge profit off the loans."
The Four Assurances
The K-12 theory of action is based on the four assurances, which will look familiar. They are
1) Academic standards will show that students really are college and career ready, because states have been lying to them. Fortunately, we all know the exact secret of measuring someone's C&C readiness, so, easy peasy.
2) Big data. Because that will totally give teachers the feedback they need to do their jobs (because we are all clueless, I guess. Or liars. But if we're liars, what difference will the feedback make? We'll just lie about it.) No mention of what else big data might be useful for.
3) Improve preparation and evaluation of teachers. Because "when it comes to teaching, love, and commitment and talent matter tremendously." And love and commitment really show up on those standardized tests. Also, poor students have bad access to good education, and that makes Arne sad.
4) Gets several graphs that boil down to: Some schools really suck. Fewer than 2,000 schools produce more than half the dropouts, which amount to almost 75% of brown and black dropouts. Can I have a fact check on aisle three? No more tinkering, says Arne. We are going to throw real money "to drive real change with unprecedented urgency."
The Federal Role and How We Made It Almost Illegal
As we made our plans, we had to factor in that the federal role in education is "unusual," by which we mean "constitutionally non-existent." In the 1960s it grew to encompass handing out money for "inputs."
The Obama administration has sought to fundamentally shift the federal
role, so that the Department is doing much more to support reform and
innovation in states, districts, and local communities.
And now after a big bunch of laying out the President's program developed by the President and following the President's goals for the President's vision of the education as supported by the President's initiative, Arne spends some time saying, "But, we, like totally were being pushed along by state and local officials in a way that is not at all a violation of law regarding federal involvement in American education."
So we offered grants and stuff, and states signed up for them (Arne doesn't mention the NCLB gun pointed at every state's head). Basically, the feds figured out how to apply principles of venture philanthropy to gummint work. Don't just give money to people who say they'll do something good-- lay out exactly what you want done and then wait for someone to create just that. It's not if you build it they will come-- it's if you pay for it, they will come and build it themselves.
At the end of the day, I believe it is that courage, and not our
resources, that will transform educational opportunity in our country. But we have a lot more resources than courage, so that's what we're going with. Now you may think this is the part where we get the story of how the governors just leapt up and said, "Hey, we want to write standards!" But actually, we get this:
In March of 2009, President Obama called on the nation’s governors and
state school chiefs to “develop standards and assessments that don’t
simply measure whether students can fill in a bubble on a test, but
whether they possess 21st century skills like problem-solving and
critical thinking and entrepreneurship and creativity.”
And golly bob howdy, those standards have gone over like gangbusters. We just awarded a bunch of grant money, and we also awarded grant money to the consortia that won our contest to develop assessments. These are great assessments. magical assessments. How magical?
When these new assessments are in use in the 2015-15 school year,
millions of U.S. schoolchildren, parents, and teachers will know, for
the first time, if students truly are on-track for colleges and careers.
Reform has to be about results.
The Wind Up
Duncan quotes five questions from Sir Michael Barber, whom he does not identify as That Guy from Pearson, and points out they are better than the questions that the USDOE usually asks about their money: Are program rules being followed? Are monies being spent as promised? So understand that THIS USDOE will not be all about compliance with their rules (this was in 2010, so Duncan may not have known that he would eventually threaten several states with losing their money if they did not comply with his conditions for giving it to them.)
Duncan's DOE is going to be listening to the states, and in all fairness he has only had four years to get started on this and a lot on his plate, so maybe that's coming soon. We also have a lot to learn from other countries (like Finland, South Korea, and Singapore, because if we are too dense to recognize the role of local culture and socio-economics when it comes to American urban school districts, why would we recognize it on an international level. They all speak English, right?)
Annnnd we have lots to teach other countries. So watch out Other Countries-- we may happily export our swell and profitable ideas to you!
The year, again, was 2010. It's a pretty complete picture of the reformy agenda's public face as well as a fairly straightforward admission that education reform does require a big fat federal power grab, and that this whole business is the administration's baby and nobody else's.
Showing posts with label Duncan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Duncan. Show all posts
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Duncan to Rest of US: Shut Up
Last week Arne Duncan and John King shared a bill at the National Action Network gathering in NYC. King's message was "Blah blah blah standards tests blah." Same old, same old. Duncan, however, field tested a new message that translates basically to, "All youse normals, just shut up."
John King's history as NY High Commissioner of Educationy Stuff is that of an old school politician-- he says dumb things and does dumb things-- and he never fails to disappoint. But while Duncan is consistent in his pursuit of bad policy, he's a new school post-Reagan pol who understands that if you say good things, you can just go ahead and do bad things that don't match. Except, of course, that he also gets bad cases of the dunderheads, and then dumb things just fall out of his mouth. So I didn't pay much attention to what King had to say; I could probably write it for him. But as quotes started to appear from the Random Noise Generator that is Arne's mouth, I perked up.
Part was pure boilerplate. "I challenge you to support your governor as he challenges the status quo and tries to raise standards, raise expectations, and evaluate and support your teachers and principals."
At the risk of setting off the redundant redundancy alarm myself, let me repeat that neither King nor any of the other Purveryors of Reformy Nonsense are fighting the status quo. The PoRN stars have had years upon years to show us all how their complex of standards based test driven high accountability baloney will save us all, and it isn't happening. NY is special because it has had every single element the PoRNs want-- the charters, the TFA, the testing, the teacher evaluations, the centrally produced teacher-proof CCSS curriculum materials (okay, they haven't killed tenure yet)-- and yet none of those programs has produced anything remotely like success. In New York State the reformy nonsense IS THE STATUS QUO.
King is not challenging that status quo. He is challenging all the people who hate the status quo he and Cuomo have bolted into place.
As a side note, I'll point out that apparently Arne's list is a bunch of things that King is going to do singlehandedly. There is no call for everyone to pitch in and help, no "we're all in it together to lift up the public schools that belong to all of us." Nope. Just "support this guy while he does these things." (He also tagged Cuomo as a brave national leader.)
Arne has been trying out a new talking point lately. It's on display in the latest #AskArne video (which, for the love of God,you should not watch, but I summarize it for you here). Here's the version he used in NY.
It’s going to be hard, it’s going to be rocky, there is going to be mistakes. People need to listen, they need to be humble in this and be nimble and make changes. But to sort of stop and go back to the bad old days simply doesn’t make sense to me.
This new rhetoric is familiar to anyone who, at the age of six, slipped on the ice, fell down, got up, and exclaimed, "I meant to do that. Shut up."
A year ago, in settings such as his infamous "How To Present The News About CCSS The Way I Want You To" speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the PoRN position was, "Anything you've heard about problems with CCSS stuff is a lie. This stuff is great, and we must implement it exactly the way it's laid out"
Last winter we had moved on to "Stay the course. Don't lose momentum! It's starting to work!"
Now we're swinging around to, "Well, of course there will be some problems and mistakes. We totally expected that. It's absolutely part of the master plan for implementation to involve the screwed up torpedoing teacher careers and crushing eight-year-old spirits." Okay, it doesn't generally get as specific as that last part, but our new talking point is basically, "Yeah, when I fixed your carburetor, I totally expected the front end of the car would burst into flames. That's how it's supposed to work. Shut up."
"People need to listen. They," Arne advises, "need to be humble...and nimble..."
People? Which people, I wonder. Not King, who we are supposed to cheer for, nor Cuomo who is a brave leader. Nor did Duncan use that oh-so-obscure construction "We." There isn't a bit of Arne's talk to suggest that what he means is "We reform pushers need to stop and check ourselves, our ideas, and our plans. We need to listen to the people who have been affected by our work and really consider how it's playing out on the ground. We need to be humble enough and flexible enough to be able to say that even though we really believed in a program, it needs to be changed in light of the reality that our children are facing." I mean, geeze, Arne-- if I can see all the way from rural PA what you should be saying, why can't you?
When, in the same speech, Arne characterizes parent concerns as "drama and noise," it becomes even clearer who is actually supposed to be doing the listening. And it's not Arne. No, when someone says, "I need to be humble and listen," it means "I have to do better." But when someone says, "You need to be humble and listen," it means, "Shut up. Remember your place. Stop all your drama and noise."
The "bad old days" flourish is, as always, insulting. I invite Arne to try it out in, say, Massachusetts where the bad old days featured better standards and better results than the current reformy mess. The only thing I like about the "bad old days" construction is that it's an admission that the "status quo" line is a lie. How can we "return" to the bad old days, if they are what we are fighting against right now?
It seems like a screw-up, but I'm sure it's exactly what he meant to say. I'll shut up now.
John King's history as NY High Commissioner of Educationy Stuff is that of an old school politician-- he says dumb things and does dumb things-- and he never fails to disappoint. But while Duncan is consistent in his pursuit of bad policy, he's a new school post-Reagan pol who understands that if you say good things, you can just go ahead and do bad things that don't match. Except, of course, that he also gets bad cases of the dunderheads, and then dumb things just fall out of his mouth. So I didn't pay much attention to what King had to say; I could probably write it for him. But as quotes started to appear from the Random Noise Generator that is Arne's mouth, I perked up.
Part was pure boilerplate. "I challenge you to support your governor as he challenges the status quo and tries to raise standards, raise expectations, and evaluate and support your teachers and principals."
At the risk of setting off the redundant redundancy alarm myself, let me repeat that neither King nor any of the other Purveryors of Reformy Nonsense are fighting the status quo. The PoRN stars have had years upon years to show us all how their complex of standards based test driven high accountability baloney will save us all, and it isn't happening. NY is special because it has had every single element the PoRNs want-- the charters, the TFA, the testing, the teacher evaluations, the centrally produced teacher-proof CCSS curriculum materials (okay, they haven't killed tenure yet)-- and yet none of those programs has produced anything remotely like success. In New York State the reformy nonsense IS THE STATUS QUO.
King is not challenging that status quo. He is challenging all the people who hate the status quo he and Cuomo have bolted into place.
As a side note, I'll point out that apparently Arne's list is a bunch of things that King is going to do singlehandedly. There is no call for everyone to pitch in and help, no "we're all in it together to lift up the public schools that belong to all of us." Nope. Just "support this guy while he does these things." (He also tagged Cuomo as a brave national leader.)
Arne has been trying out a new talking point lately. It's on display in the latest #AskArne video (which, for the love of God,you should not watch, but I summarize it for you here). Here's the version he used in NY.
It’s going to be hard, it’s going to be rocky, there is going to be mistakes. People need to listen, they need to be humble in this and be nimble and make changes. But to sort of stop and go back to the bad old days simply doesn’t make sense to me.
This new rhetoric is familiar to anyone who, at the age of six, slipped on the ice, fell down, got up, and exclaimed, "I meant to do that. Shut up."
A year ago, in settings such as his infamous "How To Present The News About CCSS The Way I Want You To" speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the PoRN position was, "Anything you've heard about problems with CCSS stuff is a lie. This stuff is great, and we must implement it exactly the way it's laid out"
Last winter we had moved on to "Stay the course. Don't lose momentum! It's starting to work!"
Now we're swinging around to, "Well, of course there will be some problems and mistakes. We totally expected that. It's absolutely part of the master plan for implementation to involve the screwed up torpedoing teacher careers and crushing eight-year-old spirits." Okay, it doesn't generally get as specific as that last part, but our new talking point is basically, "Yeah, when I fixed your carburetor, I totally expected the front end of the car would burst into flames. That's how it's supposed to work. Shut up."
"People need to listen. They," Arne advises, "need to be humble...and nimble..."
People? Which people, I wonder. Not King, who we are supposed to cheer for, nor Cuomo who is a brave leader. Nor did Duncan use that oh-so-obscure construction "We." There isn't a bit of Arne's talk to suggest that what he means is "We reform pushers need to stop and check ourselves, our ideas, and our plans. We need to listen to the people who have been affected by our work and really consider how it's playing out on the ground. We need to be humble enough and flexible enough to be able to say that even though we really believed in a program, it needs to be changed in light of the reality that our children are facing." I mean, geeze, Arne-- if I can see all the way from rural PA what you should be saying, why can't you?
When, in the same speech, Arne characterizes parent concerns as "drama and noise," it becomes even clearer who is actually supposed to be doing the listening. And it's not Arne. No, when someone says, "I need to be humble and listen," it means "I have to do better." But when someone says, "You need to be humble and listen," it means, "Shut up. Remember your place. Stop all your drama and noise."
The "bad old days" flourish is, as always, insulting. I invite Arne to try it out in, say, Massachusetts where the bad old days featured better standards and better results than the current reformy mess. The only thing I like about the "bad old days" construction is that it's an admission that the "status quo" line is a lie. How can we "return" to the bad old days, if they are what we are fighting against right now?
It seems like a screw-up, but I'm sure it's exactly what he meant to say. I'll shut up now.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Duncan Checks in with Race Results
The US DOE released reports Wednesday, March 19, to update us on how well the Race to the Top winners are doing (because in US education, we only want some states to be winners). The full collection of reports is here, but Arne wanted to let everyone know about his four superstars in Top Racing.
This year is the final year for implementing RTTT, and at this point we might expect to see some payoff from the investment of $4 Billion-with-a-B. According to Michele McNeil at EdWeek, Duncan says we are seeing those investments "enter the classroom" despite some "contention and chaos" in various states.
The area of improvement that needs the most improvement in its area is, apparently, teacher improvement. For improvement in this area, Duncan singled out North Carolina and Delaware.
This is astonishing. North Carolina has become the poster child for teacher beat-downs in the Eastern US, a state where teachers are leaving by busloads, floundering in debt after years without a raise, and facing the end of any sorts of job protection. This is the state where new teacher pay went up, but not anybody else's. This is the state where districts have been directed to offer their top 25% of teachers $500 in exchange for giving up tenure.This is the state whose leaders have seriously considered putting a twenty-year cap on the length of a teacher's career. This is the state that Virginia has started poaching teachers from simply by offering a decent wage and work conditions.
If this is a state that matches Duncan's idea of how to improve the profession, heaven help us all.
Beyond these four awesome examples of how to up teachers' games, US DOE displayed concern over some other states.
Ohio cannot interest districts in the state's great ideas. Florida's new evaluation system didn't give any different results from its old system, so clearly it's not working, because a new evaluation system apparently should show that there are lots of lousy teachers in the state. DC apparently no longer basks in the warm glow of Rhee-initiated teacher fixiness. Georgia is the very back of the pack-- so far back that they might lose their 9-million-dollar grant.
The DOE is allowing freebie extensions for a fifth year; eleven of the twelve have applied so far.
The full report offers a state-by-state reports that will take a little time and attention to unpack. I look forward to the data nuggets contained therein.
This year is the final year for implementing RTTT, and at this point we might expect to see some payoff from the investment of $4 Billion-with-a-B. According to Michele McNeil at EdWeek, Duncan says we are seeing those investments "enter the classroom" despite some "contention and chaos" in various states.
The area of improvement that needs the most improvement in its area is, apparently, teacher improvement. For improvement in this area, Duncan singled out North Carolina and Delaware.
This is astonishing. North Carolina has become the poster child for teacher beat-downs in the Eastern US, a state where teachers are leaving by busloads, floundering in debt after years without a raise, and facing the end of any sorts of job protection. This is the state where new teacher pay went up, but not anybody else's. This is the state where districts have been directed to offer their top 25% of teachers $500 in exchange for giving up tenure.This is the state whose leaders have seriously considered putting a twenty-year cap on the length of a teacher's career. This is the state that Virginia has started poaching teachers from simply by offering a decent wage and work conditions.
If this is a state that matches Duncan's idea of how to improve the profession, heaven help us all.
Beyond these four awesome examples of how to up teachers' games, US DOE displayed concern over some other states.
Ohio cannot interest districts in the state's great ideas. Florida's new evaluation system didn't give any different results from its old system, so clearly it's not working, because a new evaluation system apparently should show that there are lots of lousy teachers in the state. DC apparently no longer basks in the warm glow of Rhee-initiated teacher fixiness. Georgia is the very back of the pack-- so far back that they might lose their 9-million-dollar grant.
The DOE is allowing freebie extensions for a fifth year; eleven of the twelve have applied so far.
The full report offers a state-by-state reports that will take a little time and attention to unpack. I look forward to the data nuggets contained therein.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Uncle Arne Wants You-- Again!!
Arne just announced an exciting new program to create teacher leaders
to help promote the Ugly Mess O'Reform backed by the USDOE these days.
Actually, it's the same ugly mess that they've been promoting all along, but someone in the Messaging Office has sent out the memo that we have to call it something else. So these days only Bill Gates has the nerve to say the words "Common Core." For ordinary bureaucratic mortals, the Voldemortian "Common Core" has been replaced with references to raising standards, higher standards, super-duper standards. etc.
But whatever it is, Uncle Arne (and Bill Gates) would like us to help him sell it. He would like to team up with the National Board to raise up a host of High Standard Teacher Warriors to make the sales pitch he would like us to make.
I would make fun of Arne for having the epiphany that the whole reformy crapsicle might go over better if authentic teacher voices (and not paid-for TOY's paraphrasing pre-written press releases) were involved-- I would make fun of that epiphany, except that he keeps having it.
The pitch for Teach to Lead acknowledges its predecessor, R-E-S-P-E-C-T, which had similar hopes and dreams:
The purpose of the RESPECT Project is to directly engage with teachers and principals all across America in a national conversation about teaching.
RESPECT was going to transform the teaching profession. Today it's a website with a link to a year-old youtube clip that has only been viewed 9,700 times. Its press release tab simply brings a list of USDOE's press releases. There's a pdf of the "Blueprint for R.E.S.P.E.C.T." which contains the same old bureaucratic baloney that the USDOE has been cranking out like a prize heifer with IBS.
Or we could go back to the TEACH campaign, now about two years old, determined to recruit and retain super-duper teachers who would express their teaching joy by telling the world about how wise and correct the USDOE is. Over at teach.org, you can find all sorts of techy gold, like a blog that hasn't had a new post since November of 2013. TEACH also gave us the strikingly ill-chosen motto "Make more. Teach" and the attempt to co-opt the work of Taylor Mali, allowing the program to make fun of itself with a deeply sweet obliviousness.
This sort of foolishness extends all across the high stakes test-driven accountability status quo landscape. NEA put its logo on the "Great Public Schools" initiative, generally acronymated as GPS (you know-- that thing you use when you've lost your way). You can check it out at gpsnetwork.org, where you'll find a large discussion board community consisting largely of CCSS shills periodically trying to start chirpy "So what are YOUR favorite ways in which CCSS has facilitated fully actualized pedagogical blurgy blurgy blurg" conversations and failing because there are next-to-zero actual teachers participating.
It didn't work. None of them worked. They have never worked. They set up the tables with donuts and pretty brochures and wait for us to stop by so they can "engage" us and get us to pick up the talking points and carry them out into the world. And they end up feeding the donuts to the crickets and pasting new logos onto the brochures for the next round.
I'm trying to find a witty way to phrase this, but I can't-- these people are so damn stupid!
What we keep seeing are repeated attempts to involve teacher voices without actually having to listen to teacher voices. "We would like teachers to lead, and we would like them to do what we tell them to. We want teachers to be empowered, but only with just as much power as we give them (and can take away if they get unruly). And in all cases, pretending to listen to teachers should work just as well as actually listening, right? I mean, they can't tell the difference, can they?"
Are these guys just uniformly terrible managers of other human beings, or do they think we are as dumb as they keep insisting we are? I don't know, but I'm surely going to wait a bit before I rush to sign up for Teach to Lead.
Actually, it's the same ugly mess that they've been promoting all along, but someone in the Messaging Office has sent out the memo that we have to call it something else. So these days only Bill Gates has the nerve to say the words "Common Core." For ordinary bureaucratic mortals, the Voldemortian "Common Core" has been replaced with references to raising standards, higher standards, super-duper standards. etc.
But whatever it is, Uncle Arne (and Bill Gates) would like us to help him sell it. He would like to team up with the National Board to raise up a host of High Standard Teacher Warriors to make the sales pitch he would like us to make.
I would make fun of Arne for having the epiphany that the whole reformy crapsicle might go over better if authentic teacher voices (and not paid-for TOY's paraphrasing pre-written press releases) were involved-- I would make fun of that epiphany, except that he keeps having it.
The pitch for Teach to Lead acknowledges its predecessor, R-E-S-P-E-C-T, which had similar hopes and dreams:
The purpose of the RESPECT Project is to directly engage with teachers and principals all across America in a national conversation about teaching.
RESPECT was going to transform the teaching profession. Today it's a website with a link to a year-old youtube clip that has only been viewed 9,700 times. Its press release tab simply brings a list of USDOE's press releases. There's a pdf of the "Blueprint for R.E.S.P.E.C.T." which contains the same old bureaucratic baloney that the USDOE has been cranking out like a prize heifer with IBS.
Or we could go back to the TEACH campaign, now about two years old, determined to recruit and retain super-duper teachers who would express their teaching joy by telling the world about how wise and correct the USDOE is. Over at teach.org, you can find all sorts of techy gold, like a blog that hasn't had a new post since November of 2013. TEACH also gave us the strikingly ill-chosen motto "Make more. Teach" and the attempt to co-opt the work of Taylor Mali, allowing the program to make fun of itself with a deeply sweet obliviousness.
This sort of foolishness extends all across the high stakes test-driven accountability status quo landscape. NEA put its logo on the "Great Public Schools" initiative, generally acronymated as GPS (you know-- that thing you use when you've lost your way). You can check it out at gpsnetwork.org, where you'll find a large discussion board community consisting largely of CCSS shills periodically trying to start chirpy "So what are YOUR favorite ways in which CCSS has facilitated fully actualized pedagogical blurgy blurgy blurg" conversations and failing because there are next-to-zero actual teachers participating.
It didn't work. None of them worked. They have never worked. They set up the tables with donuts and pretty brochures and wait for us to stop by so they can "engage" us and get us to pick up the talking points and carry them out into the world. And they end up feeding the donuts to the crickets and pasting new logos onto the brochures for the next round.
I'm trying to find a witty way to phrase this, but I can't-- these people are so damn stupid!
What we keep seeing are repeated attempts to involve teacher voices without actually having to listen to teacher voices. "We would like teachers to lead, and we would like them to do what we tell them to. We want teachers to be empowered, but only with just as much power as we give them (and can take away if they get unruly). And in all cases, pretending to listen to teachers should work just as well as actually listening, right? I mean, they can't tell the difference, can they?"
Are these guys just uniformly terrible managers of other human beings, or do they think we are as dumb as they keep insisting we are? I don't know, but I'm surely going to wait a bit before I rush to sign up for Teach to Lead.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Sharp-Minded Van Roekel and Rhee Join Debate Club
US News has a feature called "Debate Club" which presents "a meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topic." Yesterday they decided to collect some sharp minds to debate the Common Core. And among other things, we learned that Van Roekel's "course correction" lasted about a week.
The choice of sharp minds is telling. Arguing against the Core are Neal McClusky (Cato Institute Center for Educational Freedom), Matt Kibbe (FreedomWorks), and Mike McShane (American Enterprise Institute). So we're going with the "CCSS is opposed by some right-wingy types" narrative.
Arguing for are Charles Barron (Democrats for Education Reform), Jack Markell (Delaware Governor and co-chair of CCSS initiative), Michelle Rhee (educational dilettante), and Dennis Van Roekel (sound of my hand slapping my forehead).
Van Roekel Unchanges Course
All of these sharp minds deserve attention, but it's DVR's offering that is most illuminating. You may recall that just over a week ago DVR "corrected course." His offering to the debate club is literally just an edited down version of his course-correction letter, but it's what he has cut in the edit that is most damning.
Still here: Calling himself a teacher. NEA members always thought national standards a great idea. Critics on right and left oppose them. Implementation train wreck. National standards are better than patchwork. Roll-out sucked because teachers not involved. Books and tests should match standards. Globally competitive blah blah blahdy blah.
Not here: DVR's "botched implementation" letter included specific recommendations, including putting a hold on CCSS while teachers on the state level examined and rewrote the standards as they deemed necessary. DVR's debate club edit shows no trace of this. In fact, we've completely backed off backing off. The headline-grabbing course change is no more. It took just a week for DVR to walk back everything significant he said in his course correction letter; now we're back to "the core is totally awesome and we just need to tweak implementation a little bit."
Note that, given the length of some of the other arguments, DVR did not have to cut the action items from his own piece. The only reason for his earlier, stronger statements not to be here is because he wanted to cut them out. It took DVR just eight days to weasel-step himself backwards.
In the interests of transparency, I admit to having said nice things about DVR when he offered the course correction. I suppose, like most of the good reformy folks, I could just erase that blog and pretend I never said it. So, well played DVR, well played. Also, bite me.
What Other Sharp Minds Have To Say
While the DVR double-reverse is the big takeaway here, I can't skip over the other sharp-minded offerings in the debate club. Here, in no particular order, are these wise observations.
Mike McShane thinks national standards are super-fine. But states went after them too quickly, which was a big problem, and then they signed on for uber-computer-techy-testing, which was just foolhardy and expensive as all get out. CCSS botched the implementation so badly that the whole business has been undermined.
Jack Markell believes in the Big Mo of CCSS and warns us not to panic. Improve implementation and wait patiently while several years' worth of students have their education wasted as we figure this out. He claims to have met first grade teachers who have used data analysis and CCSS to make themselves more effective, and I'm probably not supposed to conclude from that that these teachers sucked terribly before CCSS, but that's the only conclusion I can reach. Markell also scores points for nerve by actually using the phrase "staying the course" without irony.
Neal McClusky comes out of the gate with the headline "Common Core Treats Students Like Soulless Widgets" and wraps up with the sentence "It is a federally coerced, one-size-fits-all regime that ignores basic, human reality." Everything in between is icing on that cake.
Charles Barone reminds me that I want so badly for his group's full name to be "Democrats for Education Reform Programs," because then their acronym would be DERP and justice would be served. Barone provides a pretty spectacular goulash of goonery. He says in some states CCSS is becoming the "Vietnam of education issues" and isn't that a rich and curious analogy for a CCSS proponent to use. He depicts opposition is "all-purpose right-wing fringe arguments" and lumps opponents with "small bands of tea partiers." He blames the rash of testing in New York on Randi Weingarten and the AFT. And then, as God is my witness, he descends into a series of disconnected sentences that argue against CCSS. These perhaps are meant to support his main point, which seems to be that CCSS intentions are beautiful but implementation is undermining that. In which case, DERP is a well-earned title.
For the finish, Barone, incredibly, goes back to Vietnam! This is an apt metaphor apparently not for "never should have been there in the first place" or "mess created by tissue of government lies" but instead we're reaching for "quagmire" or "place everybody left after they figured it was not cost-effective to stay." Not making things better, Charles.
Matt Kibbe argues that all attempts at national standardization are doomed to fail, that all federal attempts to intervene in education have failed miserably, and that the federal government is a really awful terribly money-sucking black hole that consumes all things bright and good. He offers an interesting new summation of CCSS-- "Common Core represents a set of national standards with the aim of imposing uniformity on the country’s schools through rigorous testing requirements." Then he offers further observations about how badly federal government sucks, notes that children are individuals, says conservatives should hate this, and brings it all home with a call for School Choice.
Michelle Rhee hasn't accomplished much of value in her adult life, but boy does she have her talking points polished to bright sheen. Her argument is personal-- she uses the word "I" a great deal-- and familiar. The states wrote the CCSS. Teachers (75% of them) love it. We have to fight the status quo because Estonia is kicking our ass. She constructs a barely-made-of-straw man and then kicks it down (straw men are the only people Rhee will debate). Rhee feels all the feelings. She's outraged. She's appalled. She has some false statistics to back her feelings up. Also, high tech companies are pushing for more foreign work visas because we don't have enough engineers in this country (willing to work cheap). She is no stranger to how change is hard in education reform. She is all about the kids. That's why from now on she is going to donate her massive speaker fees to charities that work with children. Okay, I made that last part up. She's totally going to keep making money hand over fist talking about how much she wants to look out for the kiddies.
Who won the debate? You can still click on over there and cast a vote. Unfortunately, you can't vote on how badly you think US News stacked the debate against a full examination of CCSS, nor can you vote for which debater made the most ridiculous points or most egregiously stabs his own union members in the back.
The choice of sharp minds is telling. Arguing against the Core are Neal McClusky (Cato Institute Center for Educational Freedom), Matt Kibbe (FreedomWorks), and Mike McShane (American Enterprise Institute). So we're going with the "CCSS is opposed by some right-wingy types" narrative.
Arguing for are Charles Barron (Democrats for Education Reform), Jack Markell (Delaware Governor and co-chair of CCSS initiative), Michelle Rhee (educational dilettante), and Dennis Van Roekel (sound of my hand slapping my forehead).
Van Roekel Unchanges Course
All of these sharp minds deserve attention, but it's DVR's offering that is most illuminating. You may recall that just over a week ago DVR "corrected course." His offering to the debate club is literally just an edited down version of his course-correction letter, but it's what he has cut in the edit that is most damning.
Still here: Calling himself a teacher. NEA members always thought national standards a great idea. Critics on right and left oppose them. Implementation train wreck. National standards are better than patchwork. Roll-out sucked because teachers not involved. Books and tests should match standards. Globally competitive blah blah blahdy blah.
Not here: DVR's "botched implementation" letter included specific recommendations, including putting a hold on CCSS while teachers on the state level examined and rewrote the standards as they deemed necessary. DVR's debate club edit shows no trace of this. In fact, we've completely backed off backing off. The headline-grabbing course change is no more. It took just a week for DVR to walk back everything significant he said in his course correction letter; now we're back to "the core is totally awesome and we just need to tweak implementation a little bit."
Note that, given the length of some of the other arguments, DVR did not have to cut the action items from his own piece. The only reason for his earlier, stronger statements not to be here is because he wanted to cut them out. It took DVR just eight days to weasel-step himself backwards.
In the interests of transparency, I admit to having said nice things about DVR when he offered the course correction. I suppose, like most of the good reformy folks, I could just erase that blog and pretend I never said it. So, well played DVR, well played. Also, bite me.
What Other Sharp Minds Have To Say
While the DVR double-reverse is the big takeaway here, I can't skip over the other sharp-minded offerings in the debate club. Here, in no particular order, are these wise observations.
Mike McShane thinks national standards are super-fine. But states went after them too quickly, which was a big problem, and then they signed on for uber-computer-techy-testing, which was just foolhardy and expensive as all get out. CCSS botched the implementation so badly that the whole business has been undermined.
Jack Markell believes in the Big Mo of CCSS and warns us not to panic. Improve implementation and wait patiently while several years' worth of students have their education wasted as we figure this out. He claims to have met first grade teachers who have used data analysis and CCSS to make themselves more effective, and I'm probably not supposed to conclude from that that these teachers sucked terribly before CCSS, but that's the only conclusion I can reach. Markell also scores points for nerve by actually using the phrase "staying the course" without irony.
Neal McClusky comes out of the gate with the headline "Common Core Treats Students Like Soulless Widgets" and wraps up with the sentence "It is a federally coerced, one-size-fits-all regime that ignores basic, human reality." Everything in between is icing on that cake.
Charles Barone reminds me that I want so badly for his group's full name to be "Democrats for Education Reform Programs," because then their acronym would be DERP and justice would be served. Barone provides a pretty spectacular goulash of goonery. He says in some states CCSS is becoming the "Vietnam of education issues" and isn't that a rich and curious analogy for a CCSS proponent to use. He depicts opposition is "all-purpose right-wing fringe arguments" and lumps opponents with "small bands of tea partiers." He blames the rash of testing in New York on Randi Weingarten and the AFT. And then, as God is my witness, he descends into a series of disconnected sentences that argue against CCSS. These perhaps are meant to support his main point, which seems to be that CCSS intentions are beautiful but implementation is undermining that. In which case, DERP is a well-earned title.
For the finish, Barone, incredibly, goes back to Vietnam! This is an apt metaphor apparently not for "never should have been there in the first place" or "mess created by tissue of government lies" but instead we're reaching for "quagmire" or "place everybody left after they figured it was not cost-effective to stay." Not making things better, Charles.
Matt Kibbe argues that all attempts at national standardization are doomed to fail, that all federal attempts to intervene in education have failed miserably, and that the federal government is a really awful terribly money-sucking black hole that consumes all things bright and good. He offers an interesting new summation of CCSS-- "Common Core represents a set of national standards with the aim of imposing uniformity on the country’s schools through rigorous testing requirements." Then he offers further observations about how badly federal government sucks, notes that children are individuals, says conservatives should hate this, and brings it all home with a call for School Choice.
Michelle Rhee hasn't accomplished much of value in her adult life, but boy does she have her talking points polished to bright sheen. Her argument is personal-- she uses the word "I" a great deal-- and familiar. The states wrote the CCSS. Teachers (75% of them) love it. We have to fight the status quo because Estonia is kicking our ass. She constructs a barely-made-of-straw man and then kicks it down (straw men are the only people Rhee will debate). Rhee feels all the feelings. She's outraged. She's appalled. She has some false statistics to back her feelings up. Also, high tech companies are pushing for more foreign work visas because we don't have enough engineers in this country (willing to work cheap). She is no stranger to how change is hard in education reform. She is all about the kids. That's why from now on she is going to donate her massive speaker fees to charities that work with children. Okay, I made that last part up. She's totally going to keep making money hand over fist talking about how much she wants to look out for the kiddies.
Who won the debate? You can still click on over there and cast a vote. Unfortunately, you can't vote on how badly you think US News stacked the debate against a full examination of CCSS, nor can you vote for which debater made the most ridiculous points or most egregiously stabs his own union members in the back.
Friday, January 24, 2014
#AskArne & Spleen Theater
#AskArne is a video series on youtube that features Arne Duncan spewing baloney answering questions from theoretical teachers and other interested folks. It generally features the sort of straight shooting we've learned to expect from the USDOE, but the newly released "The Role of Private Funds and Interests in Education" could be used to fertilze all the fields in Kansas.
I am not going to be the first or last blogger to take a look at this (in fact, it looks like Anthony Cody and I were typing at the same time, and his version is much more grown-up and facty) but the point of this blog is me to vent my spleen before I end up with little blown-up spleen parts all over my insides, so I am going to break this down anyway. I watch with the captions on and sound off because I think you get better face and body language reads. Also, I get hives listening to Arne's voice. I'll be using the closed captions as my transcript, so if somebody has bollixed that up, the bollixing will be reflected here.
This may be the toughest seven minutes I've ever watched my way through, but here we go...
Opening logo. I never really noticed before, but what the hell is that thing at the bottom of the tree? A flying snake wearing a beret?
Hey! It's Joiselle Cunningham and Lisa Clarke, teaching fellows from NYC and Washington state. "That means we are teachers on leave from our positions, bringing teacher perspectives to the Department." Oh, honey. I hope you do better work back in your classroom. They are standing at the National Library of Education, a thing I did not realize existed.
They're going to talk about private interests, and they cross fade into thanking Arne for taking the time to talk to them at this arranged interview that they were assigned by his office to conduct. This canned note of acting like he's a gracious guest instead of the ringmaster hits a nice, full false note right off the bat. Arne is sitting at a library table with the ladies in just-a-shirt, as if he's a Regular Guy and not a Very Rich Guy who likes to hang with Extremely Rich Guys.
So Lisa is going to ask the first question. And we leap right into it, asking if corporate-based philanthropists are playing too heavy a role in public education and if there's a corporate agenda at the Department of Education. This is a question she's "heard teachers asking" and the slight smirk that accompanies it suggests that the question reminds her of when her daughter asked if there was a monster in the closet. What I'm seeing is, "Please, Arne, calm the foolish fears of these silly people."
Arne is a good student who dutifully works important words from the prompt into the first sentence of his response. But as for that influence, "Nothing could be further from the truth." Not for the last time, I must applaud the special effects of the film. You cannot see his nose grow at all. "We listen to everybody," he says, and then proceeds to list a bunch of everybody's who are all the types of groups that cynics might call corporate-based philanthropy. "We try and spend a lot of time, "he continues incorrectly (it's "try TO spend"), "with teachers, listening to students, listening to community members." It's at this point that I start talking back to the screen. "Try harder, Arne."I say. My spleen is mollified. "A number of really important decisions we have made recently have been based on those conversations" he says, and then sticks the landing on the talking point about moving away from zero tolerance.
"Arne, let's stay on this for a second," says Joiselle, and I think it's cute the way she pretends to be controlling the flow of this conversation with her patron and boss. Then I hear "as we talk to teachers around the country" and I am momentarily wondering when the heck THAT happened. Was there a USDOE listening tour? Because I'm thinking that would be almost as much fun as a John King CCSS pep rally. Anyway, she's heard somewhere (everywhere?) that there's concern about private corporations and philanthropists that are involved in public education. What is the role of private dollars in public education? Which is a nice phrase, so kudos, uncredited writer.
"Sadly, education is underinvested in the vast majority of places this country." And then he's on to a list of things that schools need money for but I am busy brain-goggling. Wait! What? Because it appears that he is
A) admitting that schools are underfunded and therefor lacking in resources, which is funny, because in hisblaming discussions of What's Wrong With Teachers and Schools and Teachers, this problem doesn't get much play ("We should be amazed and proud that our teachers achieve so much success with so little help from us," said no Arne Duncan ever);
B) that when the government underfunds one of its agencies, the private sector should be picking up the slack. So, as roads and infrastructures crumble in PA, we should be getting corporations to pick up that tab. I myself am really looking forward to "The CIA, brought to you by Proctor and Gamble"
and C) that this private picking up of public slack is not a civic duty or a contribution, but an investment, aka thing you put money into with the expectation of getting more money out of it.
In short (okay, not really) I'm pretty sure Duncan just said, "Come buy up our public education functions. They're going cheap and offer great ROI."
AND (bonus round) he said it in the process of proving that private dollars do NOT have undue influence on public education. Which I suppose could be true, because "undue" just means inappropriate and (anti-surprise) Duncan thinks "due" influence = "pretty damn much."
So now my spleen is singing "Ride of the Valkyrie" but Arne says that you have to have good smart partnerships and you don't want schools to be isolated from the community, and that's not entirely stupid, so my spleen subsides once again. Schools as community centers. Yes, that's swell too. For example--
BAM. We will now list Swell Things That Corporate Sponsors Have Done. GE Foundation. Ford Foundation helped with labor relations? Joyce Foundation helped with teacher evaluation stuff (and that has been a rousing success, cries my spleen) which comes in the same sentence as reducing gun violence in Chicago which I don't think is meant to be related to teacher evaluations, although who the hell knows these days. Now we'll spend a relatively huge chunk of time on P-Tech (sponsored by IBM).
Then Arne unleashes "Again, all of this should be determined at the local level, not by us." And my spleen is amazed at the special effects, because you can not actually see the room disappear under a giant tidal wave of bovine fecal matter.
That somehow leads directly to a new idea-- that with all of this unmet need, for teachers and schools to bar the door and say that all these people are bad somehow or have an agenda of hurting kids or hurting teachers is just-- well, that has not been his experience. So there you have it. Arne's decision here is completely data-driven by one piece of data-- his experience. And schools need money, and these rich guys have money, so what else do we need to know anyway?
New question. We name check a couple of other Teaching Fellows who heard a question about private interests and the new testing stuff. And my spleen is sad, because it knows this is an important question and it expects to hate the answer a lot. Anyway, Lisa is saying that some people claim the new assessments are just about making money, and could you, Arne, tell us what you think about that, because we, as teaching fellows working here at the USDOE as well as being functioning literate beings on planet earth for the past several years, have no idea what Arne Duncan might say about the role of corporate interests when it comes to testing. And Lisa makes a pouty face, like she is sad to even have to bother this Great Guy with such a mean-spirited inquiry. Seriously. My spleen thinks this is the worst infomercial ever.
Arne thinks that's an interesting question. He thinks the facts don't quite back up the worry and skepticism (so, only mostly back it up?) and here comes what I believe is an actual shiny new talking point. Here's the pitch-- schools have been giving oh-so-many tests anyway, and they were certainly made by companies, and golly, THAT was certainly expensive. But now we've got these consortia that can get those tests for you bulk, and THAT has to be cheaper (because the government always gets stuff for the best price) and economies of scale, dontchaknow. And you'll be glad to know that the test developers are working to some up with something that goes way beyond the bubble tests with critical thinking and writing, too. So yippee! More better tests! Saving money, so we can pump the leftovers back into the classroom. My spleen wants to run over to the pentagon to get a $10,000 hammer to smack Arne in the head.
New question-- Do states have a choice, Arne, with all this? And we are going to pretend that "this" means "tests." At this point my spleen begins to suspect that Pearson shot Arne's face up with a 50-gallon drum of Botox because how else could he get through all this without laughing, but it seems to be wearing off because he finds parts of this answer hilarious, like explaining that states can be part of one or both of the consortia or make their own tests out of everyday objects found around the house. But--again-- don't 50 states have more purchasing power together and also don't we want to be able to compare things all across the country and my spleen and I are vocal again, hollering, "Yes, Arne, I hardly know how to plan my lessons without knowing what the kids in fifth period English out in Medicine Hat, Wyoming, are doing!" Arne thinks states are free to do different things if they want to act like damn fools.
New question-- When guys like Bill Gates or Eli Broad start throwing money around, does that buy them a seat at the table? Joiselle asks this like she's in a hurry to get to the end of the question because it's a dumb question and he needs to kill it with fire. I unkindly suggest that the question is backward and would rather ask what Arne could do to get the USDOE a seat at Gates and Broad's table, but I can see I am living in disappointment here.
Arne says he has great respect for them and appreciates all their money. He smiles like he remembers the time they took him out for smoothies and let him lick their spoons. But no, they don't have a seat at the table. "You guys are the table," says Arne, and I think that's supposed to mean "You guys who are teachers" and not "You guys who are my departmental prop/lackeys" but it doesn't matter because my spleen just exploded in one brightflash of raging incredulity.
Teacher Lisa shares that she knows Gates did some work with teacher leadership stuff and so it's complicated, and I spleenlessly yell that, no, it's not complicated at all, but she goes on to say she'd really like us to engage each other and I'm thinking, yes, because after the many many many many many many many many invitations teachers have received to be part of the CCSSreformy movement, we all just keep turning them down and refusing to offer any insights at all, and she is smiling a little bit like she can't believe she's saying this rotting raccoon carcass of a talking point either, but she'd like this conversation to continue, perhaps on twitter because she heard that worked really well for Michelle Rhee the other day, so let's use #AskArne to do that. And then she thanks Arne for showing up to this PR moment that he ordered, and we're on to credits and I am picking up pieces of my spleen from around the room.
You should not watch this. Nobody should. It is one of the most cynical reality-impaired dog-and-pony-with-a-paper-cone-pretending-to-be-a-unicorn shows ever concocted, and now I have to go lie down.
I am not going to be the first or last blogger to take a look at this (in fact, it looks like Anthony Cody and I were typing at the same time, and his version is much more grown-up and facty) but the point of this blog is me to vent my spleen before I end up with little blown-up spleen parts all over my insides, so I am going to break this down anyway. I watch with the captions on and sound off because I think you get better face and body language reads. Also, I get hives listening to Arne's voice. I'll be using the closed captions as my transcript, so if somebody has bollixed that up, the bollixing will be reflected here.
This may be the toughest seven minutes I've ever watched my way through, but here we go...
Opening logo. I never really noticed before, but what the hell is that thing at the bottom of the tree? A flying snake wearing a beret?
Hey! It's Joiselle Cunningham and Lisa Clarke, teaching fellows from NYC and Washington state. "That means we are teachers on leave from our positions, bringing teacher perspectives to the Department." Oh, honey. I hope you do better work back in your classroom. They are standing at the National Library of Education, a thing I did not realize existed.
They're going to talk about private interests, and they cross fade into thanking Arne for taking the time to talk to them at this arranged interview that they were assigned by his office to conduct. This canned note of acting like he's a gracious guest instead of the ringmaster hits a nice, full false note right off the bat. Arne is sitting at a library table with the ladies in just-a-shirt, as if he's a Regular Guy and not a Very Rich Guy who likes to hang with Extremely Rich Guys.
So Lisa is going to ask the first question. And we leap right into it, asking if corporate-based philanthropists are playing too heavy a role in public education and if there's a corporate agenda at the Department of Education. This is a question she's "heard teachers asking" and the slight smirk that accompanies it suggests that the question reminds her of when her daughter asked if there was a monster in the closet. What I'm seeing is, "Please, Arne, calm the foolish fears of these silly people."
Arne is a good student who dutifully works important words from the prompt into the first sentence of his response. But as for that influence, "Nothing could be further from the truth." Not for the last time, I must applaud the special effects of the film. You cannot see his nose grow at all. "We listen to everybody," he says, and then proceeds to list a bunch of everybody's who are all the types of groups that cynics might call corporate-based philanthropy. "We try and spend a lot of time, "he continues incorrectly (it's "try TO spend"), "with teachers, listening to students, listening to community members." It's at this point that I start talking back to the screen. "Try harder, Arne."I say. My spleen is mollified. "A number of really important decisions we have made recently have been based on those conversations" he says, and then sticks the landing on the talking point about moving away from zero tolerance.
"Arne, let's stay on this for a second," says Joiselle, and I think it's cute the way she pretends to be controlling the flow of this conversation with her patron and boss. Then I hear "as we talk to teachers around the country" and I am momentarily wondering when the heck THAT happened. Was there a USDOE listening tour? Because I'm thinking that would be almost as much fun as a John King CCSS pep rally. Anyway, she's heard somewhere (everywhere?) that there's concern about private corporations and philanthropists that are involved in public education. What is the role of private dollars in public education? Which is a nice phrase, so kudos, uncredited writer.
"Sadly, education is underinvested in the vast majority of places this country." And then he's on to a list of things that schools need money for but I am busy brain-goggling. Wait! What? Because it appears that he is
A) admitting that schools are underfunded and therefor lacking in resources, which is funny, because in his
B) that when the government underfunds one of its agencies, the private sector should be picking up the slack. So, as roads and infrastructures crumble in PA, we should be getting corporations to pick up that tab. I myself am really looking forward to "The CIA, brought to you by Proctor and Gamble"
and C) that this private picking up of public slack is not a civic duty or a contribution, but an investment, aka thing you put money into with the expectation of getting more money out of it.
In short (okay, not really) I'm pretty sure Duncan just said, "Come buy up our public education functions. They're going cheap and offer great ROI."
AND (bonus round) he said it in the process of proving that private dollars do NOT have undue influence on public education. Which I suppose could be true, because "undue" just means inappropriate and (anti-surprise) Duncan thinks "due" influence = "pretty damn much."
So now my spleen is singing "Ride of the Valkyrie" but Arne says that you have to have good smart partnerships and you don't want schools to be isolated from the community, and that's not entirely stupid, so my spleen subsides once again. Schools as community centers. Yes, that's swell too. For example--
BAM. We will now list Swell Things That Corporate Sponsors Have Done. GE Foundation. Ford Foundation helped with labor relations? Joyce Foundation helped with teacher evaluation stuff (and that has been a rousing success, cries my spleen) which comes in the same sentence as reducing gun violence in Chicago which I don't think is meant to be related to teacher evaluations, although who the hell knows these days. Now we'll spend a relatively huge chunk of time on P-Tech (sponsored by IBM).
Then Arne unleashes "Again, all of this should be determined at the local level, not by us." And my spleen is amazed at the special effects, because you can not actually see the room disappear under a giant tidal wave of bovine fecal matter.
That somehow leads directly to a new idea-- that with all of this unmet need, for teachers and schools to bar the door and say that all these people are bad somehow or have an agenda of hurting kids or hurting teachers is just-- well, that has not been his experience. So there you have it. Arne's decision here is completely data-driven by one piece of data-- his experience. And schools need money, and these rich guys have money, so what else do we need to know anyway?
New question. We name check a couple of other Teaching Fellows who heard a question about private interests and the new testing stuff. And my spleen is sad, because it knows this is an important question and it expects to hate the answer a lot. Anyway, Lisa is saying that some people claim the new assessments are just about making money, and could you, Arne, tell us what you think about that, because we, as teaching fellows working here at the USDOE as well as being functioning literate beings on planet earth for the past several years, have no idea what Arne Duncan might say about the role of corporate interests when it comes to testing. And Lisa makes a pouty face, like she is sad to even have to bother this Great Guy with such a mean-spirited inquiry. Seriously. My spleen thinks this is the worst infomercial ever.
Arne thinks that's an interesting question. He thinks the facts don't quite back up the worry and skepticism (so, only mostly back it up?) and here comes what I believe is an actual shiny new talking point. Here's the pitch-- schools have been giving oh-so-many tests anyway, and they were certainly made by companies, and golly, THAT was certainly expensive. But now we've got these consortia that can get those tests for you bulk, and THAT has to be cheaper (because the government always gets stuff for the best price) and economies of scale, dontchaknow. And you'll be glad to know that the test developers are working to some up with something that goes way beyond the bubble tests with critical thinking and writing, too. So yippee! More better tests! Saving money, so we can pump the leftovers back into the classroom. My spleen wants to run over to the pentagon to get a $10,000 hammer to smack Arne in the head.
New question-- Do states have a choice, Arne, with all this? And we are going to pretend that "this" means "tests." At this point my spleen begins to suspect that Pearson shot Arne's face up with a 50-gallon drum of Botox because how else could he get through all this without laughing, but it seems to be wearing off because he finds parts of this answer hilarious, like explaining that states can be part of one or both of the consortia or make their own tests out of everyday objects found around the house. But--again-- don't 50 states have more purchasing power together and also don't we want to be able to compare things all across the country and my spleen and I are vocal again, hollering, "Yes, Arne, I hardly know how to plan my lessons without knowing what the kids in fifth period English out in Medicine Hat, Wyoming, are doing!" Arne thinks states are free to do different things if they want to act like damn fools.
New question-- When guys like Bill Gates or Eli Broad start throwing money around, does that buy them a seat at the table? Joiselle asks this like she's in a hurry to get to the end of the question because it's a dumb question and he needs to kill it with fire. I unkindly suggest that the question is backward and would rather ask what Arne could do to get the USDOE a seat at Gates and Broad's table, but I can see I am living in disappointment here.
Arne says he has great respect for them and appreciates all their money. He smiles like he remembers the time they took him out for smoothies and let him lick their spoons. But no, they don't have a seat at the table. "You guys are the table," says Arne, and I think that's supposed to mean "You guys who are teachers" and not "You guys who are my departmental prop/lackeys" but it doesn't matter because my spleen just exploded in one brightflash of raging incredulity.
Teacher Lisa shares that she knows Gates did some work with teacher leadership stuff and so it's complicated, and I spleenlessly yell that, no, it's not complicated at all, but she goes on to say she'd really like us to engage each other and I'm thinking, yes, because after the many many many many many many many many invitations teachers have received to be part of the CCSSreformy movement, we all just keep turning them down and refusing to offer any insights at all, and she is smiling a little bit like she can't believe she's saying this rotting raccoon carcass of a talking point either, but she'd like this conversation to continue, perhaps on twitter because she heard that worked really well for Michelle Rhee the other day, so let's use #AskArne to do that. And then she thanks Arne for showing up to this PR moment that he ordered, and we're on to credits and I am picking up pieces of my spleen from around the room.
You should not watch this. Nobody should. It is one of the most cynical reality-impaired dog-and-pony-with-a-paper-cone-pretending-to-be-a-unicorn shows ever concocted, and now I have to go lie down.
My NEA Dues at Work-- for USDOE
This week, the NEA proudly announced the first round of recipients for its new Great Public Schools grant program, a program so awesome that it prompted the NEA to shake down its own members raise dues to help fund it. This is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Or since requiring condemned prisoners to buy the rope for their own nooses.
NEA delegates in Atlanta last year voted 54-46 percent (not exactly a landslide) to approve a dues hike for "a special fund to help support projects by state and local affiliates to improve teaching and learning." Turns out that means funding projects to support the spread of CCSS.
That is not me reading between the lines. Here's the NEA's description of the purpose of one grant: California Teachers Association (CTA) was awarded a $250,000 NEA Great Public Schools grant to ensure the successful implementation of the Common Core Standards (CCSS) in the California. (That's cut and paste; the original appears to have dropped a word). Virtually every single grant listed by the NEA is centered on the implementation of CCSS.
Illinois is going to train some CCSS trainers. Local school districts in Maryland will embark on full scale implementation of CCSS because "a key to success in implementing the CCSS, and ensure student success, is to provide teachers with support, training, and resources to assist in instruction." Ohio Education Association will use their grant to "strengthen educators' voices in school improvement while advocating for the effective implementation of Ohio's New Learning Standards" (a rose by any other name). The Massachusetts Teachers Association will engage teachers in helping shape the implementation of CCSS, particularly in helping define the policies around the effective measure of student achievement. And if they get to do that in any meaningful way, they can also open a grooming shop for sparkly unicorns.
Many of the grants are described in that fuzzy kind of bureaucratic arble-garble that would have earned you an F in lesson plan design back in that methods class that Arne Duncan thinks you barely passed. And many of them involve "partnering" with state DOE's or groups with nifty names like Public Education Business Coalition or TeachPlus. One grant is going to a uniServe office.
Only one mentions students. 25K went to Stadium View School in Hannepin County Juvenile Detention Center (Minnesota) for, among other things, publishing the work of students and placing it in the local library. All other grants are aimed at bureaucratic CCSS implementation.
Dennis Van Roekel's love for the CCSS is already well documented. Reporting on a January 23 forum in DC, Stephen Sawchuck quotes DVR, "We created campfires of excellence. What we need is a brushfire." It's an interesting choice of metaphor, and it makes me curious-- what does DVR imagine would be burned up in this brushfire? Who or what, exactly, is the brush? Because in the brushfire that is CCSS, I'm pretty sure we're immolating public school teachers and students. Personally, I would much rather hunker down around a campfire for some S-mores of scholarship.
Sawchuck notes that previous brushfire attempts have not really caught on. A panelist attributes that to the realities of trying to steer such a large organization. Well, yes. Particularly if you're trying to steer it in a direction that it doesn't want to go and which is not in the best interests of its members.
I've been a union president on the local level, and not in soft, easy times. I get that leading a teachers union is not unlike trying to herd cats made out of jello with a ten foot pole. People want to know what's going on, but they don't always want to pay attention. Some union members are like that person who walks in for the last ten minutes of the movie and wants you to explain everything that has happened so far.
It is absolutely necessary to get out ahead of them, to show some leadership, to say, "Look, follow me this way" and not just wait for them to choose a direction on their own. But it comes really seductive to start just viewing them as a faceless mass to be manipulated into whatever form you decide is best for them.
All the signs are there for the national leadership to read. The miles of angry responses on facebook pages and nea site articles. The shrinking membership rolls. The GPS site itself, which is like a cyber-ghost town, all set up to foster dynamic conversations between stakeholders but instead featuring a handful of posts here and there by shills assigned the thankless but not terribly time-consuming task of monitoring the community, like being the sheriff of Wolf Hole, Arizona.
Most of all, the gazillion words written by writers who have done the research, read the documents, heard the speeches, parsed the implications, watched the boots upon the ground, and generally collected all the evidence that tells us plainly that the current wave of reformy goodness is toxic to public school teachers. Careers are being crushed, students are being discarded, and a tradition of great public education is being dismantled for parts in this country, and in this most critical of times, NEA has decided to go to work for the feds.
I cannot think of any time, ever, in US history when a union or professional association took dues from its members in order to help the government implement a program intent on destroying the profession of its members. I am, frankly, flabbergasted. We cannot even call it being sold out anymore, because at least when you are sold out you don't pay for the sale yourself!
I would like to believe that when DVR's tenure as president ends this summer, that will mark a change, but I don't for a minute believe that he has single-handedly engineered the handover of NEA leadership to Arne Duncan. We NEA members had better start educating ourselves, now, about which of our leaders really work for the USDOE, the Gates Foundation and Pearson, and which of our leaders actually represent teachers.
In the meantime, I will mull over just how far I will let the NEA push me before I finally leave the union. It seems I'm angry at them most the time. I've calmed down enough to change the name of this piece. Originally, I was just going to call it "Bite me, NEA." I'm not sure I won't still use that title some time.
NEA delegates in Atlanta last year voted 54-46 percent (not exactly a landslide) to approve a dues hike for "a special fund to help support projects by state and local affiliates to improve teaching and learning." Turns out that means funding projects to support the spread of CCSS.
That is not me reading between the lines. Here's the NEA's description of the purpose of one grant: California Teachers Association (CTA) was awarded a $250,000 NEA Great Public Schools grant to ensure the successful implementation of the Common Core Standards (CCSS) in the California. (That's cut and paste; the original appears to have dropped a word). Virtually every single grant listed by the NEA is centered on the implementation of CCSS.
Illinois is going to train some CCSS trainers. Local school districts in Maryland will embark on full scale implementation of CCSS because "a key to success in implementing the CCSS, and ensure student success, is to provide teachers with support, training, and resources to assist in instruction." Ohio Education Association will use their grant to "strengthen educators' voices in school improvement while advocating for the effective implementation of Ohio's New Learning Standards" (a rose by any other name). The Massachusetts Teachers Association will engage teachers in helping shape the implementation of CCSS, particularly in helping define the policies around the effective measure of student achievement. And if they get to do that in any meaningful way, they can also open a grooming shop for sparkly unicorns.
Many of the grants are described in that fuzzy kind of bureaucratic arble-garble that would have earned you an F in lesson plan design back in that methods class that Arne Duncan thinks you barely passed. And many of them involve "partnering" with state DOE's or groups with nifty names like Public Education Business Coalition or TeachPlus. One grant is going to a uniServe office.
Only one mentions students. 25K went to Stadium View School in Hannepin County Juvenile Detention Center (Minnesota) for, among other things, publishing the work of students and placing it in the local library. All other grants are aimed at bureaucratic CCSS implementation.
Dennis Van Roekel's love for the CCSS is already well documented. Reporting on a January 23 forum in DC, Stephen Sawchuck quotes DVR, "We created campfires of excellence. What we need is a brushfire." It's an interesting choice of metaphor, and it makes me curious-- what does DVR imagine would be burned up in this brushfire? Who or what, exactly, is the brush? Because in the brushfire that is CCSS, I'm pretty sure we're immolating public school teachers and students. Personally, I would much rather hunker down around a campfire for some S-mores of scholarship.
Sawchuck notes that previous brushfire attempts have not really caught on. A panelist attributes that to the realities of trying to steer such a large organization. Well, yes. Particularly if you're trying to steer it in a direction that it doesn't want to go and which is not in the best interests of its members.
I've been a union president on the local level, and not in soft, easy times. I get that leading a teachers union is not unlike trying to herd cats made out of jello with a ten foot pole. People want to know what's going on, but they don't always want to pay attention. Some union members are like that person who walks in for the last ten minutes of the movie and wants you to explain everything that has happened so far.
It is absolutely necessary to get out ahead of them, to show some leadership, to say, "Look, follow me this way" and not just wait for them to choose a direction on their own. But it comes really seductive to start just viewing them as a faceless mass to be manipulated into whatever form you decide is best for them.
All the signs are there for the national leadership to read. The miles of angry responses on facebook pages and nea site articles. The shrinking membership rolls. The GPS site itself, which is like a cyber-ghost town, all set up to foster dynamic conversations between stakeholders but instead featuring a handful of posts here and there by shills assigned the thankless but not terribly time-consuming task of monitoring the community, like being the sheriff of Wolf Hole, Arizona.
Most of all, the gazillion words written by writers who have done the research, read the documents, heard the speeches, parsed the implications, watched the boots upon the ground, and generally collected all the evidence that tells us plainly that the current wave of reformy goodness is toxic to public school teachers. Careers are being crushed, students are being discarded, and a tradition of great public education is being dismantled for parts in this country, and in this most critical of times, NEA has decided to go to work for the feds.
I cannot think of any time, ever, in US history when a union or professional association took dues from its members in order to help the government implement a program intent on destroying the profession of its members. I am, frankly, flabbergasted. We cannot even call it being sold out anymore, because at least when you are sold out you don't pay for the sale yourself!
I would like to believe that when DVR's tenure as president ends this summer, that will mark a change, but I don't for a minute believe that he has single-handedly engineered the handover of NEA leadership to Arne Duncan. We NEA members had better start educating ourselves, now, about which of our leaders really work for the USDOE, the Gates Foundation and Pearson, and which of our leaders actually represent teachers.
In the meantime, I will mull over just how far I will let the NEA push me before I finally leave the union. It seems I'm angry at them most the time. I've calmed down enough to change the name of this piece. Originally, I was just going to call it "Bite me, NEA." I'm not sure I won't still use that title some time.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Seriously, Arne
Arne Duncan and I agree about something.
It's only one thing, but considering the horrid hash of the interview that Duncan gave Allie Bidwell at US News, that's one thing more than I would have expected.
It's a bit baffling, really. Duncan's only skill as Secretary of Education used to be that he could talk a good game, even if his words bore no connection whatsoever to the actual policies he pursued. Nowadays, he can't even do that. (I will note that via Rand Weingarten via twitter, Duncan apparently pleads having been misquoted in some portions of the article.)
But at one point in the article, we find this:
Part of the reason students in other countries outpace American students on these exams, Duncan said, is simply because they are more serious about education, not just in their cultures, but in their policies.
Okay, now that I look at it again, I realize that I agree with half of one thing that Duncan said, because the imbedded assumption that students in other countries outpace American students, is an assertion vague enough to be both meaningless and easily disproven. But the other part of Duncan's point has merit.
I agree that we Americans are not serious about education, both in culture and in policies. However, while Duncan and I may agree on the point, we have completely different ideas about what proves it.
If we were serious about education, we would not allow our public school system to be hijacked and dismantled by rich and powerful amateurs.
If we were serious about education, our media would direct its questions about education to teachers. We would all know the names and faces of the best teachers in this country, and they would be the ones being offered 50K a pop to talk about schools.
If we were serious about education, we would not stand for having it "measured" by means as frivolous and meaningless as the barrage of high stakes tests we subject students to.
If we were serious about education, we would fight like hell to keep the federal government's grubby grabby hands out of our state and local systems.
If we were serious about education, we would make heroes out of the people who provide it and protect them from the attacks of people who didn't know what the heck they were talking about.
If we were serious about education, we would make sure that schools had the top funding no matter what, even if that meant that other segments of government had to hold bake sales.
If we were serious about education, we would treat as a bad joke the notion that well-meaning untrained rich kids had any business spending a year or two in a classroom for resume building.
If we were serious about education, we would laugh the Common Core out of the room. Hell, if we were serious about education, we would never have proposed the Common Core in the first place.
If we were serious about education, we would never entrust our nations educational leadership to men who have no training or experience in education at all and who only listened to other men with no training or experience in education at all. If we were serious about education, we would demand leadership by people who were also serious about education, and we would demand leadership based on proven principles and techniques developed by people who truly cared about the education of America's students.
In short, Arne, if we were serious about education, we would not have you and your cronies running the Department of Education and popping up as "leaders" in the national discussion of education any more than we would be asking Robin Williams and Justin Bieber to straighten out the war in Afghanistan. If we were serious about education, we would send the whole wave of privateers masquerading as reformers scuttling back to their hedge funds and corporate tax havens.
So, I agree, Arne. We are not serious about education-- not in country, not in our policies, not in our media, not in our government.
The good news? I think we're getting a little more serious every day.
It's only one thing, but considering the horrid hash of the interview that Duncan gave Allie Bidwell at US News, that's one thing more than I would have expected.
It's a bit baffling, really. Duncan's only skill as Secretary of Education used to be that he could talk a good game, even if his words bore no connection whatsoever to the actual policies he pursued. Nowadays, he can't even do that. (I will note that via Rand Weingarten via twitter, Duncan apparently pleads having been misquoted in some portions of the article.)
But at one point in the article, we find this:
Part of the reason students in other countries outpace American students on these exams, Duncan said, is simply because they are more serious about education, not just in their cultures, but in their policies.
Okay, now that I look at it again, I realize that I agree with half of one thing that Duncan said, because the imbedded assumption that students in other countries outpace American students, is an assertion vague enough to be both meaningless and easily disproven. But the other part of Duncan's point has merit.
I agree that we Americans are not serious about education, both in culture and in policies. However, while Duncan and I may agree on the point, we have completely different ideas about what proves it.
If we were serious about education, we would not allow our public school system to be hijacked and dismantled by rich and powerful amateurs.
If we were serious about education, our media would direct its questions about education to teachers. We would all know the names and faces of the best teachers in this country, and they would be the ones being offered 50K a pop to talk about schools.
If we were serious about education, we would not stand for having it "measured" by means as frivolous and meaningless as the barrage of high stakes tests we subject students to.
If we were serious about education, we would fight like hell to keep the federal government's grubby grabby hands out of our state and local systems.
If we were serious about education, we would make heroes out of the people who provide it and protect them from the attacks of people who didn't know what the heck they were talking about.
If we were serious about education, we would make sure that schools had the top funding no matter what, even if that meant that other segments of government had to hold bake sales.
If we were serious about education, we would treat as a bad joke the notion that well-meaning untrained rich kids had any business spending a year or two in a classroom for resume building.
If we were serious about education, we would laugh the Common Core out of the room. Hell, if we were serious about education, we would never have proposed the Common Core in the first place.
If we were serious about education, we would never entrust our nations educational leadership to men who have no training or experience in education at all and who only listened to other men with no training or experience in education at all. If we were serious about education, we would demand leadership by people who were also serious about education, and we would demand leadership based on proven principles and techniques developed by people who truly cared about the education of America's students.
In short, Arne, if we were serious about education, we would not have you and your cronies running the Department of Education and popping up as "leaders" in the national discussion of education any more than we would be asking Robin Williams and Justin Bieber to straighten out the war in Afghanistan. If we were serious about education, we would send the whole wave of privateers masquerading as reformers scuttling back to their hedge funds and corporate tax havens.
So, I agree, Arne. We are not serious about education-- not in country, not in our policies, not in our media, not in our government.
The good news? I think we're getting a little more serious every day.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Arne Duncan vs. White Moms
As is spreading rapidly, Arne Duncan put his foot in it again this week with his cogent analysis of why people are not putting on a smile, lying down, and letting the Common Core roll right over them. You can find a full treatment here, but I want to just take a moment to unpack how many kinds of arrogant foolishness are rolled into that one little comment.
“It’s fascinating to me that some of the pushback is coming from, sort of, white suburban moms who — all of a sudden — their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought they were, and that’s pretty scary,”
1) Why are we having this conversation?
Once again, Arne seems to have forgotten one of the central, important fictions of the Common Core-- that they are totally the result of a state initiative, and that they in no way represent a federal attempt to commandeer the state-based control of schools. If this isn't his program, why is he devoting so much time and fervor to defending it? Why aren't a bunch of governors running around defending the program that they developed all on their own that was in no way set up and nursed to life by the feds?
2) Moms? Really??
I thought these days it was supposed to be the GOP that dismissed contrary points of view simply by attaching them to women. "Ha ha. This is the crazy kind of objection you'd expect from one of those women. You know women, with their dumb vaginas and not-very-strong thinky parts. That's who comes up with this kind of stupid objection."
3) Plus "white" and "suburban"?? Did you skip politics 101?
Granted, this is a kind of genius play here. These are people who have it cushy, but they're not truly elite. We're trying to invoke the language of privilege, but not too much because that would land us in Arne's neighborhood. So "white suburban" translates roughly as "privileged but not as great as me." Arne is saying, "People who live on the mean streets-- they get it. People who have risen to the heights of power and wealth on their great merit (like, you know, me) get it. But these out-of-touch suburbanites (did I mention they were women) don't get it."
If you think I'm reading too much into points #2 and #3, imagine how this plays if Arne instead attributes these concerns to "blue collar fathers" or "working class black parents."
4) And then when you think for a second more...
Wait-- so only suburban Moms care about how well their kids are doing at school??
5) It's not me. It's you.
The administration has managed to cave and admit that maybe the ACA rollout didn't come off quite as planned and that maybe-- just maybe-- things weren't quite as originally advertised. (Predicted soon-to-be-meme from the comment section of the WaPo article-- "Obamacore-- you can keep your school and teachers if you like them. Oops!")
But in the world of CCSS, there's still only one explanation for why people are upset about the results. Their perception of their school, the school's teachers, the education that they perceived in THEIR OWN CHILDREN-- all of those were at fault all this time, and now only the magic of thefederal oops-- state standards can finally open their eyes.
Yup-- exposure to their offspring, with whom they presumably live, occasionally share a meal, even exchange the occasional grunts and greetings-- none of that could possibly give a parent an impression of how smart their child is. Only CCSS can reveal-- and surprise them with-- the truth.
In Arne's world, there is no possible way that the bad results are even a teensy bit the result of an untested program poorly rolled out program. And that's why--
6) Randi Weingarten is actually right about something
The WaPo column contains a money quote from the AFT head, saying that the CCSS rollout is even worse than the ACA launch. And she's right. And she's right because the ACA rollout has allowed for course correction, changes based on conditions on the ground, and even an admission that some things need to be tweaked.
But in Arne-world, all problems, all objections, all difficulties with the CCSS have one explanation-- all you dumb civilians who don't know revolutionary genius when you see it. Especially those of you with vaginas.
“It’s fascinating to me that some of the pushback is coming from, sort of, white suburban moms who — all of a sudden — their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought they were, and that’s pretty scary,”
1) Why are we having this conversation?
Once again, Arne seems to have forgotten one of the central, important fictions of the Common Core-- that they are totally the result of a state initiative, and that they in no way represent a federal attempt to commandeer the state-based control of schools. If this isn't his program, why is he devoting so much time and fervor to defending it? Why aren't a bunch of governors running around defending the program that they developed all on their own that was in no way set up and nursed to life by the feds?
2) Moms? Really??
I thought these days it was supposed to be the GOP that dismissed contrary points of view simply by attaching them to women. "Ha ha. This is the crazy kind of objection you'd expect from one of those women. You know women, with their dumb vaginas and not-very-strong thinky parts. That's who comes up with this kind of stupid objection."
3) Plus "white" and "suburban"?? Did you skip politics 101?
Granted, this is a kind of genius play here. These are people who have it cushy, but they're not truly elite. We're trying to invoke the language of privilege, but not too much because that would land us in Arne's neighborhood. So "white suburban" translates roughly as "privileged but not as great as me." Arne is saying, "People who live on the mean streets-- they get it. People who have risen to the heights of power and wealth on their great merit (like, you know, me) get it. But these out-of-touch suburbanites (did I mention they were women) don't get it."
If you think I'm reading too much into points #2 and #3, imagine how this plays if Arne instead attributes these concerns to "blue collar fathers" or "working class black parents."
4) And then when you think for a second more...
Wait-- so only suburban Moms care about how well their kids are doing at school??
5) It's not me. It's you.
The administration has managed to cave and admit that maybe the ACA rollout didn't come off quite as planned and that maybe-- just maybe-- things weren't quite as originally advertised. (Predicted soon-to-be-meme from the comment section of the WaPo article-- "Obamacore-- you can keep your school and teachers if you like them. Oops!")
But in the world of CCSS, there's still only one explanation for why people are upset about the results. Their perception of their school, the school's teachers, the education that they perceived in THEIR OWN CHILDREN-- all of those were at fault all this time, and now only the magic of the
Yup-- exposure to their offspring, with whom they presumably live, occasionally share a meal, even exchange the occasional grunts and greetings-- none of that could possibly give a parent an impression of how smart their child is. Only CCSS can reveal-- and surprise them with-- the truth.
In Arne's world, there is no possible way that the bad results are even a teensy bit the result of an untested program poorly rolled out program. And that's why--
6) Randi Weingarten is actually right about something
The WaPo column contains a money quote from the AFT head, saying that the CCSS rollout is even worse than the ACA launch. And she's right. And she's right because the ACA rollout has allowed for course correction, changes based on conditions on the ground, and even an admission that some things need to be tweaked.
But in Arne-world, all problems, all objections, all difficulties with the CCSS have one explanation-- all you dumb civilians who don't know revolutionary genius when you see it. Especially those of you with vaginas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)