Sandwiched in the midst of a puff piece about Connecticut's new elite cadre of Common Core teacher shills is this important paragraph:
Getting on the list was competitive. According to a news release from the Department of Education, teachers "were chosen through a competitive
statewide application on the basis of their content knowledge, grit, and
understanding of the Common Core State Standards. Each educator
demonstrated the commitment and ability to “scale their impact” beyond
their classroom."
I'm going to let the confusing quotation marks slide and focus in on the most exciting news just kind of dropped into this PR bonanza--
...chosen through a competitive
statewide application on the basis of their content knowledge, grit, and
understanding ...
You see?!! The State of Connecticut knows how to measure grit!!!!
I am sure that all of us, all around the country, want to know how this is done. I am sure that phones are ringing off the hook in CT DOE offices as other educational thought leaders call to ask for the secret of grittological measurements.
Was it a physical test? Did they make teachers do the worm for a thousand yards? Did they make teachers peel onions and sing "memories" while watching pictures of sad puppies, all without crying? Did they have to compete in three-armed wheelchair races? Were they required to complete a season of the Amazing Race as participants? Did they have to stand stock still while being pelted with medium-sized canteloupes?
Or perhaps it was a study of their personal history. We know that grittologists have determined that people who have tended not to quit things in the past probably won't quit things in the future (who knew?) So maybe the state looked for people who didn't quit things, like lifelong members of the Columbia Record Club or folks who actually finished an unfinishable sundae or who stayed in a bad marriage. Maybe the state only accepted cancer survivors or acid reflux sufferers or folks with chronic halitosis.
Or maybe Connecticut has a special computerized grit test. Take a PARCC exam on a computer with a bad internet connection or using a keyboard on which some eighth grader has previously moved around all the keys. Create a word document on a computer running Windows 3.0-- no swearing at the blue screen of death. Play HALO with a six-year-old on your team. Is there a grit praxis?
Or maybe grit is linked to the third item on the list-- understanding of the Common Core State Standards. Maybe you have to explain the CCSS as interpreted and implemented by the CT DOE without actually laughing out loud or sneezing the word "bullshit." Or maybe they had to convince someone that they really are excited to attend something called "Teachfest" being run by a company called "LearnZillion" (what a dumb name choice-- if people aren't calling those guys "Learnzilla" behind their backs I will eat my copy of the standards).
All I can say is-- the state of CT has a goldmine here. If they are able to test teachers for grit, they need to monetize that and franchise the process, because this is a mine of inexhaustible riches. This will make a far better monetary stream than the business of having teachers employed by public schools create lessons and materials for a for-profit company (maybe grit has something to do with easily silenced scruples).
Plus, CT has the jump by having a Dream Team of 97 highly grittified teachers, which means they can be dispatched on all sort of tough commando raids. I can see the T-Shirts now-- a Sylvester Stallone looking guy with the words "We Are Here To Punch Dumb in the Face!"
You know, my uncle taught history in Connecticut for fifty years, and was much-beloved in his district. It was actually a bit of a surprise when he retired. I suppose he didn't have enough grit for Connecticut.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Making a Difference
The Reformy Creed
With proper standards alignment, it should not make any difference whether a student learned math in Tennessee or Kentucky.
If the teacher is doing a proper job, it should not make any difference whether a student comes from a privileged, enriched background or a poor one.
If a school has implemented a good teacher-proof program (like engageNY), it should not make any difference whether a student has an experienced teacher or a brand new one or a non-teacher with five weeks of training.
If the students have been exposed to the proper educational training, it should not make any difference whether they are developmentally disabled or not.
And if they are developmentally disabled, it should not make any difference in how The Test is given.
If the teacher is properly following the script, it should not make any difference which particular students are in the class.
In fact, if the teacher is properly following the script, it should not make any difference how many students are in the class.
The problem?
If there is one thing that people are motivated by, dream of, long for, strive in pursuit of, cherish, relish, desire more than even an ice cream sundae with a cherry on type it is this--
To make a difference.
People want to know that they matter, that their presence in every situation made a difference. Kafka's Metamorphosis (a non-informational text) resonates with horror because it speaks to one of a person's deepest fears-- that he will pass through life making so little difference that he might as well have been a bug.
The Reformy movement (aka The Status Quo Formerly Known As Reform) is Kafkaesque and dehumanizing because precisely because its dream, its goal, is an education system in which no individual makes any difference at all. Any student, any teacher, should make no more difference to The System than any other.
The Reformy Ideal is a human nightmare-- a system where anyone could take your place and nobody else would notice. It's not that your individual needs, strengths, weaknesses, personality or spirit are erased-- this is a system that renders all these elements so unimportant that erasing them isn't even necessary.
Every human being has a right-- in fact, an obligation-- to make a difference. The Reformy Ideal is not just a bad way to run a school system-- it's a bad way to treat other human beings.
With proper standards alignment, it should not make any difference whether a student learned math in Tennessee or Kentucky.
If the teacher is doing a proper job, it should not make any difference whether a student comes from a privileged, enriched background or a poor one.
If a school has implemented a good teacher-proof program (like engageNY), it should not make any difference whether a student has an experienced teacher or a brand new one or a non-teacher with five weeks of training.
If the students have been exposed to the proper educational training, it should not make any difference whether they are developmentally disabled or not.
And if they are developmentally disabled, it should not make any difference in how The Test is given.
If the teacher is properly following the script, it should not make any difference which particular students are in the class.
In fact, if the teacher is properly following the script, it should not make any difference how many students are in the class.
The problem?
If there is one thing that people are motivated by, dream of, long for, strive in pursuit of, cherish, relish, desire more than even an ice cream sundae with a cherry on type it is this--
To make a difference.
People want to know that they matter, that their presence in every situation made a difference. Kafka's Metamorphosis (a non-informational text) resonates with horror because it speaks to one of a person's deepest fears-- that he will pass through life making so little difference that he might as well have been a bug.
The Reformy movement (aka The Status Quo Formerly Known As Reform) is Kafkaesque and dehumanizing because precisely because its dream, its goal, is an education system in which no individual makes any difference at all. Any student, any teacher, should make no more difference to The System than any other.
The Reformy Ideal is a human nightmare-- a system where anyone could take your place and nobody else would notice. It's not that your individual needs, strengths, weaknesses, personality or spirit are erased-- this is a system that renders all these elements so unimportant that erasing them isn't even necessary.
Every human being has a right-- in fact, an obligation-- to make a difference. The Reformy Ideal is not just a bad way to run a school system-- it's a bad way to treat other human beings.
Bill McCallum, CCSS Author & Sad Scientist
When movies present us with science-related disasters, we generally involve one of two sciency types-- the mad scientists and the sad scientist. The mad scientist is the one genetically engineering giant gerbils to take over the world (cue maniacal laugh). The sad scientist is the one who believes that he is Doing Great Things, like creating no-leak ice cream cones for poor children everywhere, only to discover that his patron, whether its an evil millionaire or an evil businessman or an evil military leader, plans to use his great creation for Evil Purposes!
"No!" cries the Sad Scientist as the villagers approach his genetically modified lima beans with pitchforks and torches, "You don't understand! They won't harm you! They're really quite yummy!!" And when the Sad Scientist discovers that his GMO ferrets have actually burned down an orphanage, he still sticks up for them. "They're just misunderstood."
I was thinking about the sad scientist as I was reading up on Bill McCallum. McCallum describes himself as someone who was “born in Australia and came to the United States to pursue a Ph. D. in mathematics at Harvard University, a professor at the University of Arizona, working in number theory and mathematics education.” He's also one of the creators of Common Core, having represented Achieve on the 2009 panel that created the College and Career Ready vision of what a high school grad should look like, and then serving as one of the three lead writers on the math standards.
I encountered him when a click-pursuit led me to isupportthecommoncore.net, a website that McCallum and Jason Zimba (another math CCSS writer) started last August. McCallum does most of the blog writing on the site, assisted for stretches by his colleague Aubrey Neihaus. The lead post started like this:
The Common Core State Standards present a rare opportunity to advance the way we teach our children mathematics, reading, and writing. But change is hard, especially as forces amass to tear the standards down. This blog is for those who want to see the standards succeed and are willing to receive the occasional call to action in support of them. I recognize that you are all busy and not everybody can respond all the time. But if there are enough of us that won’t matter.
Well, almost a year later, it appears there aren't enough. The site has 323 subscribers and many fairly silent comment sections. There are a smattering of short, supportive comments; many of the comment sections are closed to comment. There are some resources, most from October 2013 or earlier, including items such as the Hunt Institute videos about CCSS. Links to "Share Your Story of Support" and "Stand Up and Be Counted" both lead to big empty nothings. A link to "Voices of Support" garners a "page not found" message.
But just as the few sad furnishings in a big empty house can tell you something about the owner, I found the website revealing. Well, sad, but revealing, too.
We have a tendency to characterize all CCSS backers as evil geniuses, malignant mad scientists, or greedy underhanded businessmen. But I've characterized CCSS regime supporters as three groups
1) People who make a living/profit from CCSS
2) People who see things in the CCSS that aren't actually there
3) People who haven't actually looked at the CCSS yet
I think Bill McCallum is part of group #2.
I've read most of what he posted here, some interviews, material he posted at his other website. Bill McCallum is no David Coleman. He appears to have a sense of humor (prior to the launch of the support site, he promised that there would be jokes, and the site includes a link to one of Colbert's CCSS bits). He is by and large respectful of CCSS opponents; he occasionally engages their argument as if it's worth talking about (at one point he wishes that the new Diane Ravitch had been around twelve years ago to fight the influence of the old Diane Ravitch). He does not, a la Coleman, suggest that he is a gifted amateur who is just making a WAG that should be fine because he's so damn smart.
Like the typical sad scientist, he seems to truly not grasp how his creation is actually being used and harnessed in the real world. In the midst of the one conversational thread on the site, he writes this:
My vision of CCSS is consensus about what we want kids to learn but not a rigid script for how they should learn it.
He says many things like that. It's not that we haven't heard a version of the point before, but I'm struck by how he frequently uses the simple language of someone who's sincerely trying to explain a truth, and not the convoluted jargonny blather of someone who is trying to hide a truth.
Searching his writing, I found more of that vision. CCSS should provide standards that can be interpreted locally. The infamous Appendix is meant as a suggestion or example of how to extend the standards, not a directive or guide. Curriculum and assessment should be based on the standards, but created by local entities.
McCallum is baffled a bit by some opponents; last summer and fall he saw them as only as wackos on the far right, and he linked to a post suggesting that CCSS is neither panacea nor Satanic, but simply a better way to focus teachers, who remain the backbone of instruction. His frequent argument against CCSS opponents is that what they are complaining about isn't really the Common Core at all.
Like a writer who has sold his novel to Hollywood, McCallum seems not to grasp that he no longer gets to define what the CCSS are or mean. Coleman appears to have fully embraced the complete CCSS regime and has moved with gusto to cash in on the whole complex. But McCallum keeps insisting that his CCSS is simply standards, and no standardized curriculum nor tests nor teacher evaluation nor school evaluations are any part of it. It is also true that a communist leader shouldn't look like a Stalin or a Mao, but reality is just a bitch some times.
I actually feel a little sad for McCallum. I imagine that some of the atomic scientists who thought they were developing an awesome power source, not a new way to immolate hundreds of thousand of people, might have struggled as well. But the corporate profiteers and data overlords and anti-teacher public school haters have found in his work a perfect tool for their agenda, and McCallum's intentions, no matter how noble they may have been, no longer matter.
I don't know how well the real Bill McCallum matches my mental picture. Maybe he's a huge jerk, and I just don't see it in his writing. I do wish he would wake up and smell the proverbial coffee. Because when I say his intentions for his creation no longer matter, that's not entirely true. His repeated statements about his intentions for the Core help feed the CCSS machinery, allow the profiteers and the rest to publicize the Core based on what its creator says and not what's actually happening. And if McCallum were ever to look at any of the anti-education crap that has been welded onto his creation and say, "This is not what I meant at all. This is wrong. This is exactly the opposite of what was supposed to happen"-- that would be a powerful force for sweeping the crap away, and making it possible to do some of the things he apparently meant to do in the first place.
It's tough for the sad scientist to come to terms with he reality of what's been done to his creation. Sadly, right now, we're left with the sad image of Bill McCallum trying to rally support for CCSS on a ghost website by hawking buttons.
"No!" cries the Sad Scientist as the villagers approach his genetically modified lima beans with pitchforks and torches, "You don't understand! They won't harm you! They're really quite yummy!!" And when the Sad Scientist discovers that his GMO ferrets have actually burned down an orphanage, he still sticks up for them. "They're just misunderstood."
I was thinking about the sad scientist as I was reading up on Bill McCallum. McCallum describes himself as someone who was “born in Australia and came to the United States to pursue a Ph. D. in mathematics at Harvard University, a professor at the University of Arizona, working in number theory and mathematics education.” He's also one of the creators of Common Core, having represented Achieve on the 2009 panel that created the College and Career Ready vision of what a high school grad should look like, and then serving as one of the three lead writers on the math standards.
I encountered him when a click-pursuit led me to isupportthecommoncore.net, a website that McCallum and Jason Zimba (another math CCSS writer) started last August. McCallum does most of the blog writing on the site, assisted for stretches by his colleague Aubrey Neihaus. The lead post started like this:
The Common Core State Standards present a rare opportunity to advance the way we teach our children mathematics, reading, and writing. But change is hard, especially as forces amass to tear the standards down. This blog is for those who want to see the standards succeed and are willing to receive the occasional call to action in support of them. I recognize that you are all busy and not everybody can respond all the time. But if there are enough of us that won’t matter.
Well, almost a year later, it appears there aren't enough. The site has 323 subscribers and many fairly silent comment sections. There are a smattering of short, supportive comments; many of the comment sections are closed to comment. There are some resources, most from October 2013 or earlier, including items such as the Hunt Institute videos about CCSS. Links to "Share Your Story of Support" and "Stand Up and Be Counted" both lead to big empty nothings. A link to "Voices of Support" garners a "page not found" message.
But just as the few sad furnishings in a big empty house can tell you something about the owner, I found the website revealing. Well, sad, but revealing, too.
We have a tendency to characterize all CCSS backers as evil geniuses, malignant mad scientists, or greedy underhanded businessmen. But I've characterized CCSS regime supporters as three groups
1) People who make a living/profit from CCSS
2) People who see things in the CCSS that aren't actually there
3) People who haven't actually looked at the CCSS yet
I think Bill McCallum is part of group #2.
I've read most of what he posted here, some interviews, material he posted at his other website. Bill McCallum is no David Coleman. He appears to have a sense of humor (prior to the launch of the support site, he promised that there would be jokes, and the site includes a link to one of Colbert's CCSS bits). He is by and large respectful of CCSS opponents; he occasionally engages their argument as if it's worth talking about (at one point he wishes that the new Diane Ravitch had been around twelve years ago to fight the influence of the old Diane Ravitch). He does not, a la Coleman, suggest that he is a gifted amateur who is just making a WAG that should be fine because he's so damn smart.
Like the typical sad scientist, he seems to truly not grasp how his creation is actually being used and harnessed in the real world. In the midst of the one conversational thread on the site, he writes this:
My vision of CCSS is consensus about what we want kids to learn but not a rigid script for how they should learn it.
He says many things like that. It's not that we haven't heard a version of the point before, but I'm struck by how he frequently uses the simple language of someone who's sincerely trying to explain a truth, and not the convoluted jargonny blather of someone who is trying to hide a truth.
Searching his writing, I found more of that vision. CCSS should provide standards that can be interpreted locally. The infamous Appendix is meant as a suggestion or example of how to extend the standards, not a directive or guide. Curriculum and assessment should be based on the standards, but created by local entities.
McCallum is baffled a bit by some opponents; last summer and fall he saw them as only as wackos on the far right, and he linked to a post suggesting that CCSS is neither panacea nor Satanic, but simply a better way to focus teachers, who remain the backbone of instruction. His frequent argument against CCSS opponents is that what they are complaining about isn't really the Common Core at all.
Like a writer who has sold his novel to Hollywood, McCallum seems not to grasp that he no longer gets to define what the CCSS are or mean. Coleman appears to have fully embraced the complete CCSS regime and has moved with gusto to cash in on the whole complex. But McCallum keeps insisting that his CCSS is simply standards, and no standardized curriculum nor tests nor teacher evaluation nor school evaluations are any part of it. It is also true that a communist leader shouldn't look like a Stalin or a Mao, but reality is just a bitch some times.
I actually feel a little sad for McCallum. I imagine that some of the atomic scientists who thought they were developing an awesome power source, not a new way to immolate hundreds of thousand of people, might have struggled as well. But the corporate profiteers and data overlords and anti-teacher public school haters have found in his work a perfect tool for their agenda, and McCallum's intentions, no matter how noble they may have been, no longer matter.
I don't know how well the real Bill McCallum matches my mental picture. Maybe he's a huge jerk, and I just don't see it in his writing. I do wish he would wake up and smell the proverbial coffee. Because when I say his intentions for his creation no longer matter, that's not entirely true. His repeated statements about his intentions for the Core help feed the CCSS machinery, allow the profiteers and the rest to publicize the Core based on what its creator says and not what's actually happening. And if McCallum were ever to look at any of the anti-education crap that has been welded onto his creation and say, "This is not what I meant at all. This is wrong. This is exactly the opposite of what was supposed to happen"-- that would be a powerful force for sweeping the crap away, and making it possible to do some of the things he apparently meant to do in the first place.
It's tough for the sad scientist to come to terms with he reality of what's been done to his creation. Sadly, right now, we're left with the sad image of Bill McCallum trying to rally support for CCSS on a ghost website by hawking buttons.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
John White Has LA Teachers' Backs
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana had barely finished joining the crowd of politicians dancing rapidly away from various aspects of Common Core when State Superintendent of Education John White continued his streak of bad wrong no-good comments by sticking up by the people who will be most hurt by something as wild and crazy as dumping the PARCC testing. White wanted to speak up on behalf of the people whose interests have always been at the forefront of his policy decisions in the past.
Teachers.
White had previously offered the fanciful notion that the PARCC test would be a money-saver, or at least break even. Did he not know that the PARCC tests are not free? Mercedes Schneider told him.
But in today's Advocate, White is quoted expressing his concern over the probable ship jumpification of Jindal.
Just from a teacher’s perspective, it is deeply confusing and probably troubling that they now go into the remainder of the school year with leadership across state government not giving them the clarity they need and deserve and they have had for several years.
White's education training comes courtesy of a stint in TFA and training from the Broad Academy, so you know he really gets where teachers are coming from. He worries about teachers getting what they deserve, and clarity has always been his guiding principle, and does my internet connection now access some alternate universe, because from out here in the cheap seats it has been clear for years that Louisiana is one of the poster children for how the Masters of Reforming Our Nation's Schools can get pretty much everything they want and yet have no actual success to show for it.
White jumped into the Core a year sooner than needed, and rolled out PARCC practice without actually saying that's what was up. He got caught lying about the exposure of student data, and he presided over a busticated version of VAM even worse than the "original." And then there's the ongoing loot-and-pillage by charter interests going on under his watch.
But he is worried about the poor confused teachers, God bless them.
It's an impressive pivot. The more standard MoRONS move is to invoke the children and how they will suffer without the benefits of the super-duper awesome tests, tests whose magical powers automatically cause knowledge to bloom within the brains of even the dullest young person.
But no. White doesn't want to make things confusing for the teachers.
“I think it is just a shame from the teacher’s perspective,” White said of the debate over test plans. “You really have no idea whether to go right or go left.”
Yes, that's sweet. Because I am sure that the teachers of Louisiana have known exactly where they were going previously, much like Thelma and Louise knew exactly where they were going at the end of their adventure.
But reading this article, I don't so much smell as I catch the faint whiff of panic sweat.
“What would we do? We don’t have a test for next year. We have been planning for years, it is no secret, to purchase this test,” he said of PARCC.
I had plans. I had backers. I had money lined up. I made promises to people who are expecting me to deliver.
No, White is not sounding like someone who at long last is worried about the care and feeding, the health welfare and safety of teachers. He sounds like a guy who is in to his bookie-- his big, burly bookie with the enforcer with arms like tree trunks and a pierced eyeball-- for a whole bunch of money, and he just saw snake eyes roll up on his last big bet.
But I wouldn't worry about him. He's Bobby Jindal's boy, his pushed-for-hire, and I'm sure that even if Jindal queers White's PARCC deal, he'll still have White's back. Just like White is looking out for all of Louisiana's teachers.
[with a big hat tip to the reporting of Mercedes Schneider and Crazy Crawfish]
Teachers.
White had previously offered the fanciful notion that the PARCC test would be a money-saver, or at least break even. Did he not know that the PARCC tests are not free? Mercedes Schneider told him.
But in today's Advocate, White is quoted expressing his concern over the probable ship jumpification of Jindal.
Just from a teacher’s perspective, it is deeply confusing and probably troubling that they now go into the remainder of the school year with leadership across state government not giving them the clarity they need and deserve and they have had for several years.
White's education training comes courtesy of a stint in TFA and training from the Broad Academy, so you know he really gets where teachers are coming from. He worries about teachers getting what they deserve, and clarity has always been his guiding principle, and does my internet connection now access some alternate universe, because from out here in the cheap seats it has been clear for years that Louisiana is one of the poster children for how the Masters of Reforming Our Nation's Schools can get pretty much everything they want and yet have no actual success to show for it.
White jumped into the Core a year sooner than needed, and rolled out PARCC practice without actually saying that's what was up. He got caught lying about the exposure of student data, and he presided over a busticated version of VAM even worse than the "original." And then there's the ongoing loot-and-pillage by charter interests going on under his watch.
But he is worried about the poor confused teachers, God bless them.
It's an impressive pivot. The more standard MoRONS move is to invoke the children and how they will suffer without the benefits of the super-duper awesome tests, tests whose magical powers automatically cause knowledge to bloom within the brains of even the dullest young person.
But no. White doesn't want to make things confusing for the teachers.
“I think it is just a shame from the teacher’s perspective,” White said of the debate over test plans. “You really have no idea whether to go right or go left.”
Yes, that's sweet. Because I am sure that the teachers of Louisiana have known exactly where they were going previously, much like Thelma and Louise knew exactly where they were going at the end of their adventure.
But reading this article, I don't so much smell as I catch the faint whiff of panic sweat.
“What would we do? We don’t have a test for next year. We have been planning for years, it is no secret, to purchase this test,” he said of PARCC.
I had plans. I had backers. I had money lined up. I made promises to people who are expecting me to deliver.
No, White is not sounding like someone who at long last is worried about the care and feeding, the health welfare and safety of teachers. He sounds like a guy who is in to his bookie-- his big, burly bookie with the enforcer with arms like tree trunks and a pierced eyeball-- for a whole bunch of money, and he just saw snake eyes roll up on his last big bet.
But I wouldn't worry about him. He's Bobby Jindal's boy, his pushed-for-hire, and I'm sure that even if Jindal queers White's PARCC deal, he'll still have White's back. Just like White is looking out for all of Louisiana's teachers.
[with a big hat tip to the reporting of Mercedes Schneider and Crazy Crawfish]
Insulating the NEA
How is it that NEA becomes so insulated from its members? After all, we are the union, right?
My first big lesson in representative democracy came courtesy of the United Methodist Church. In the church structure, local churches are grouped into districts, and districts are grouped into larger regions, and on and on to the national level. Theoretically all these levels are responsive to the concerns of local churches, but as it turns out, not so much. The problem, as one wise man once explained to me, is that the district/regional/national body becomes the representatives' local church.
When they start out, reps say "we" when they mean the local they come from. But after a while, "we" means the regional coneference.
The EAs, like many large-scale representational bodies, use this process deliberately. When you go to a regional gathering of local reps and officers, business is always mixed with fun and parties and socializing. The energy is kept high and for newer local reps, it can be like being invited to sit at the lunch table with the very coolest kids.
In this day and age, there's little practical need for most of these gatherings. Information on issues could be sent out over the net, votes could be taken over the net, and at the very least the full-weekend gatherings could be reduced to a Saturday afternoon. Likewise union training sessions that could be a single day are often stretched into at least one overnight so that participants have the opportunity for a big social dinner followed by a dance or social event. And gathering locations are still picked based on what fun things there are to do.
While it's true that none of these training or governance events need to be dry, dull and painful, there's another purpose served by wrapping union gathering in so much socializing-- it bonds the local person to the larger group. I go back to my local school and when a co-worker talks to me about "that dumb-ass decision that those state level jerks made," I'm thinking, "No, that state-level jerk is my good friend Chris who is a great person, so I'm sure that decision is peachy swell."
For teacher-reps who have spent enough time at the state or national level, "we" means "union leadership" and "they" means "those guys who work at local schools."
This is not unique to NEA; most large groups involve switching loyalties from the local to the large group (e.g. too many Congressmen). This bonding in turn facilitates one of the most common, but toxic, principles of all political activity-- the ends justifies the means.
When we arrive at the outcome of this strategy, it will be really good for the members, so it's okay if we manage the rank and file in order to get them to support what we're doing. We'll tell them just what we need them to know. We'll stack the vote. We'll guarantee that we get the outcome we want, even if we have to totally trash any semblance of democratic process to do it, because we are pursuing a Worthwhile End. It's for the members' own good.
Believe me-- I totally get how leadership fosters a...well, crankiness...about members. If you've been a union officer for more than a week, you've heard all the classics: "My principal is yelling at me for leaving an hour early every day. Make him stop." "Why didn't you get us a contract with free ice cream every Tuesday?" "Do you mean to tell me they can discipline me just because I came to school drunk five or twelve times? Protect me!!"
And informing the members? You can try to explain something 147 times to members who blow you off more thoroughly than a sleepy fifth period class of low-function juniors, but a week later some of those same members will be angrily complaining that you made a decision on that same matter without consulting them. People don't want to be involved, but they still want veto power.
So I get it. I get how easily the rank and file can get under leadership's skin. I get that union leaders are like assistant principals-- dealing mostly with the problem children. But here's the thing-- that's the job. Complaining about how much work your members create is like complaining that the students in your class are all children. That's the job. If you don't like the job, get another job.
And none of this justifies the NEA's insulated insular behavior. None of it justifies the Us vs. Them mentality with the members, nor does it justify "managing" the rank and file because only leadership really knows what's good for them. Shut up and fall in line, because, unity. NEA is so bad at communicating. SOoooooooo bad.It is so corporate and bureaucratic that most days it seems no different than the USDOE. Have DVR and Arne ever been seen together?
Can it be changed? I doubt it.
Even if we could somehow nominate and elect outsiders to represent us, they would face the same problem all outsiders face when entering an insular system-- they wouldn't be able to get anything done, because they would need the cooperation of the Old Guard (and in fact, the Old Guard carefully watches over the path to any offices of significant power-- ain't nobody storming that castle).
But we should still pay attention. We get ballots to vote on state reps and RAs and all manner of associationy stuff and most of us barely pay attention to who is going to what. We should start paying attention. We should start making sure that our representatives are actually representing us, and we should ask about sending them just for the sessions of substance and skipping the social hour. I don't really need to have my dues dollars spent on events designed to show my representatives that hanging out with the union leaders is so much cooler than spending time with the local rank and file. I don't want being a union rep to be a terrible chore, but I also don't want union reps to forget where they came from, and these days I don't think NEA leadership could find its way home with a GPS and a hundred days to make the trip.
My first big lesson in representative democracy came courtesy of the United Methodist Church. In the church structure, local churches are grouped into districts, and districts are grouped into larger regions, and on and on to the national level. Theoretically all these levels are responsive to the concerns of local churches, but as it turns out, not so much. The problem, as one wise man once explained to me, is that the district/regional/national body becomes the representatives' local church.
When they start out, reps say "we" when they mean the local they come from. But after a while, "we" means the regional coneference.
The EAs, like many large-scale representational bodies, use this process deliberately. When you go to a regional gathering of local reps and officers, business is always mixed with fun and parties and socializing. The energy is kept high and for newer local reps, it can be like being invited to sit at the lunch table with the very coolest kids.
In this day and age, there's little practical need for most of these gatherings. Information on issues could be sent out over the net, votes could be taken over the net, and at the very least the full-weekend gatherings could be reduced to a Saturday afternoon. Likewise union training sessions that could be a single day are often stretched into at least one overnight so that participants have the opportunity for a big social dinner followed by a dance or social event. And gathering locations are still picked based on what fun things there are to do.
While it's true that none of these training or governance events need to be dry, dull and painful, there's another purpose served by wrapping union gathering in so much socializing-- it bonds the local person to the larger group. I go back to my local school and when a co-worker talks to me about "that dumb-ass decision that those state level jerks made," I'm thinking, "No, that state-level jerk is my good friend Chris who is a great person, so I'm sure that decision is peachy swell."
For teacher-reps who have spent enough time at the state or national level, "we" means "union leadership" and "they" means "those guys who work at local schools."
This is not unique to NEA; most large groups involve switching loyalties from the local to the large group (e.g. too many Congressmen). This bonding in turn facilitates one of the most common, but toxic, principles of all political activity-- the ends justifies the means.
When we arrive at the outcome of this strategy, it will be really good for the members, so it's okay if we manage the rank and file in order to get them to support what we're doing. We'll tell them just what we need them to know. We'll stack the vote. We'll guarantee that we get the outcome we want, even if we have to totally trash any semblance of democratic process to do it, because we are pursuing a Worthwhile End. It's for the members' own good.
Believe me-- I totally get how leadership fosters a...well, crankiness...about members. If you've been a union officer for more than a week, you've heard all the classics: "My principal is yelling at me for leaving an hour early every day. Make him stop." "Why didn't you get us a contract with free ice cream every Tuesday?" "Do you mean to tell me they can discipline me just because I came to school drunk five or twelve times? Protect me!!"
And informing the members? You can try to explain something 147 times to members who blow you off more thoroughly than a sleepy fifth period class of low-function juniors, but a week later some of those same members will be angrily complaining that you made a decision on that same matter without consulting them. People don't want to be involved, but they still want veto power.
So I get it. I get how easily the rank and file can get under leadership's skin. I get that union leaders are like assistant principals-- dealing mostly with the problem children. But here's the thing-- that's the job. Complaining about how much work your members create is like complaining that the students in your class are all children. That's the job. If you don't like the job, get another job.
And none of this justifies the NEA's insulated insular behavior. None of it justifies the Us vs. Them mentality with the members, nor does it justify "managing" the rank and file because only leadership really knows what's good for them. Shut up and fall in line, because, unity. NEA is so bad at communicating. SOoooooooo bad.It is so corporate and bureaucratic that most days it seems no different than the USDOE. Have DVR and Arne ever been seen together?
Can it be changed? I doubt it.
Even if we could somehow nominate and elect outsiders to represent us, they would face the same problem all outsiders face when entering an insular system-- they wouldn't be able to get anything done, because they would need the cooperation of the Old Guard (and in fact, the Old Guard carefully watches over the path to any offices of significant power-- ain't nobody storming that castle).
But we should still pay attention. We get ballots to vote on state reps and RAs and all manner of associationy stuff and most of us barely pay attention to who is going to what. We should start paying attention. We should start making sure that our representatives are actually representing us, and we should ask about sending them just for the sessions of substance and skipping the social hour. I don't really need to have my dues dollars spent on events designed to show my representatives that hanging out with the union leaders is so much cooler than spending time with the local rank and file. I don't want being a union rep to be a terrible chore, but I also don't want union reps to forget where they came from, and these days I don't think NEA leadership could find its way home with a GPS and a hundred days to make the trip.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Today's NEA = Yesterday's GOP
Today's NEA is not your father's NEA. It's more like your grandfather's NEA.
NEA reminds me of the GOP of the last two Presidential elections -- they've heard of the technology stuff that the Young Folks are using, what with their social medianting and playing with their twitters, but it's probably just some passing fad (like the rap) and, anyway, the people who know how to work with that stuff don't seem quite like Our Kind of People, so we'd rather not have them in the parlor, please and thank you. And that equipment they use-- it would probably smudge our upholstery and ruffle our throw rug, so just ask them to stay out in the front yard and we'll consider their advice, but probably ignore it. And by the way, why don't any of the young folks ever stop by to visit?
Consider twitter. Even Job Bush and the Chamber know enough to try to at least fake a twitter presence. Word on the street is that Arne Duncan's tweets are intern-generated, but at least there is communication going on through an account with his name on it. He even attempts the occasional #AskArne, which is a terrible terrible idea, but which shows at least a rudimentary understanding of how twitter works and what you have to do to use it.
Randi Weingarten may be an active and engaged union leader, or she may be a manipulative woman bent on establishing herself as a national political power. I've heard both theories and everything in between, and personally, I don't know where the truth lies. But you know what I do know-- you can find her on twitter pretty much every day. And you know who she'll talk to? Pretty much anybody, and she'll do it live enough that I have to believe that she just goes ahead and types it herself.
Meanwhile on twitter, you can check out Dennis Van Roekel's account. Well, you can sort of check it out, because it's locked and protected. It says that DVR is following one person and has thirteen tweets. This is better than NEA vice president Lily Eskelsen Garcia, who has apparently never used the account at all. It looks like Secretary-Treasurer Becky Pringle is doing slightly better-- twenty-two tweets, half of which came from the Kansas Legislature-- with photos. The NEA PR team and NEA Today both have very active corporate accounts.
Facebook is even worse. The National Education Association (you won't find them under "NEA") has a page; out of the three-point-something million members, just under 32,000 have liked the page. NEA Today's page has just over 64,000 likes. For comparison, the Bad Ass Teachers group just topped 42,000 members with nothing resembling actual organization. The Network for Public Education, another group that isn't collecting a zillion dollars from millions of members and is barely a year old , is just shy of 10K likes on Facebook.
If I were a young teacher trying to get a handle on the various teacher-related groups out there, and I were trying to do it by looking around the interwebular materials available, I would find precious little to clarify NEA for me (of course, much of the NEA site is closed to non-members). If I scoured social media, I might conclude that NEA is a group that used to exist but has since gone out of business and is now run by bots.
Oh, and let's not forget GPS Network, a discussion board and internet community software package that now functions as one of the biggest ghost communities on the internet. There have been several rotations of "hosts" to perk up the chatty discussions, but check out the forum on Common Core, arguably the hottest hot button in the teaching world, and you'll find nothing but a handful of shills posting perky praises to CCSS at the rate of one or two a month, while the internet equivalent of tumbleweeds fill the gaping empty space in between.
The only way NEA could be on the right track is if their new motto is "Trying To Avoid Putting a Human Face on a Large Corporate Entity." The groups out there in the reformy world that actually ARE big soulless corporate entities are doing a better job of faking humanity than the country's largest collection of living breathing human teachers.
Never mind bad policies, stupid choices, and an all-too-typical rush to jump on the CCSS bandwagon before checking to see if that wagon has wheels-- NEA's presentation of itself and use of twenty-first century tools is enough explanation all by itself for their dwindling grasp of anybody under thirty-five.
Guys, I am fifty-six years old. My computer basis was a course about programming in BASIC on punchcards. I have every excuse in the world to be a cranky old luddite fart who refuses to learn his email password, and yet, I'm up to my elbows in this stuff. Hell, Diane Ravitch is no chicken d'spring, and she has built a huge voice by dogged and smart use of all the 21st century tools. And that means nobody who is not my mother has an excuse for being as stunningly bad at all of this as NEA.
Add to this new media illiteracy to a message astonishingly out-of-touch with many (if not most) of the rank and file, and it's a miracle (or perhaps simply a demonstration of collective inertia) that NEA still manages to limp forward at all. Even if the NEA message were forward-thinking and empowering, who would ever hear it??
But the backwards media is just a symptom. Witness NEA's reporting-- reporting!!-- last week on the growing test revolt. They offer a warmed-over recounting of what's going on and some words of support-- all in reference to one of the biggest movements currently going on in education, and with which the NEA has absolutely nothing to do. The new NEA Today tagline might as well be "Reporting the News That's Important in Education, But To Which NEA Is Irrelevant."
Do I think it can get better? I have my doubts. In an organization this hidebound you don't rise up through the ranks by doing anything that rocks the boat. And it's very hard to turn around an organization that believes its members are to be managed rather than listened to.
But I'd like it to be possible, if for no other reason than it would be nearly impossible in today's climate to create something from scratch like what NEA is supposed to be. I don't think we can make an impression on the national union, but I think we have a better shot in some cases of getting a useful response from the state-level association, and I think the states could get through to the national corporate level. If anybody has the contacts or means of doing that, sooner is probably better than later, because the process will be slow. After all, we might have to wait for the national office to type a response out on their remington and send it by pennyfarthing messenger.
NEA reminds me of the GOP of the last two Presidential elections -- they've heard of the technology stuff that the Young Folks are using, what with their social medianting and playing with their twitters, but it's probably just some passing fad (like the rap) and, anyway, the people who know how to work with that stuff don't seem quite like Our Kind of People, so we'd rather not have them in the parlor, please and thank you. And that equipment they use-- it would probably smudge our upholstery and ruffle our throw rug, so just ask them to stay out in the front yard and we'll consider their advice, but probably ignore it. And by the way, why don't any of the young folks ever stop by to visit?
Consider twitter. Even Job Bush and the Chamber know enough to try to at least fake a twitter presence. Word on the street is that Arne Duncan's tweets are intern-generated, but at least there is communication going on through an account with his name on it. He even attempts the occasional #AskArne, which is a terrible terrible idea, but which shows at least a rudimentary understanding of how twitter works and what you have to do to use it.
Randi Weingarten may be an active and engaged union leader, or she may be a manipulative woman bent on establishing herself as a national political power. I've heard both theories and everything in between, and personally, I don't know where the truth lies. But you know what I do know-- you can find her on twitter pretty much every day. And you know who she'll talk to? Pretty much anybody, and she'll do it live enough that I have to believe that she just goes ahead and types it herself.
Meanwhile on twitter, you can check out Dennis Van Roekel's account. Well, you can sort of check it out, because it's locked and protected. It says that DVR is following one person and has thirteen tweets. This is better than NEA vice president Lily Eskelsen Garcia, who has apparently never used the account at all. It looks like Secretary-Treasurer Becky Pringle is doing slightly better-- twenty-two tweets, half of which came from the Kansas Legislature-- with photos. The NEA PR team and NEA Today both have very active corporate accounts.
Facebook is even worse. The National Education Association (you won't find them under "NEA") has a page; out of the three-point-something million members, just under 32,000 have liked the page. NEA Today's page has just over 64,000 likes. For comparison, the Bad Ass Teachers group just topped 42,000 members with nothing resembling actual organization. The Network for Public Education, another group that isn't collecting a zillion dollars from millions of members and is barely a year old , is just shy of 10K likes on Facebook.
If I were a young teacher trying to get a handle on the various teacher-related groups out there, and I were trying to do it by looking around the interwebular materials available, I would find precious little to clarify NEA for me (of course, much of the NEA site is closed to non-members). If I scoured social media, I might conclude that NEA is a group that used to exist but has since gone out of business and is now run by bots.
Oh, and let's not forget GPS Network, a discussion board and internet community software package that now functions as one of the biggest ghost communities on the internet. There have been several rotations of "hosts" to perk up the chatty discussions, but check out the forum on Common Core, arguably the hottest hot button in the teaching world, and you'll find nothing but a handful of shills posting perky praises to CCSS at the rate of one or two a month, while the internet equivalent of tumbleweeds fill the gaping empty space in between.
The only way NEA could be on the right track is if their new motto is "Trying To Avoid Putting a Human Face on a Large Corporate Entity." The groups out there in the reformy world that actually ARE big soulless corporate entities are doing a better job of faking humanity than the country's largest collection of living breathing human teachers.
Never mind bad policies, stupid choices, and an all-too-typical rush to jump on the CCSS bandwagon before checking to see if that wagon has wheels-- NEA's presentation of itself and use of twenty-first century tools is enough explanation all by itself for their dwindling grasp of anybody under thirty-five.
Guys, I am fifty-six years old. My computer basis was a course about programming in BASIC on punchcards. I have every excuse in the world to be a cranky old luddite fart who refuses to learn his email password, and yet, I'm up to my elbows in this stuff. Hell, Diane Ravitch is no chicken d'spring, and she has built a huge voice by dogged and smart use of all the 21st century tools. And that means nobody who is not my mother has an excuse for being as stunningly bad at all of this as NEA.
Add to this new media illiteracy to a message astonishingly out-of-touch with many (if not most) of the rank and file, and it's a miracle (or perhaps simply a demonstration of collective inertia) that NEA still manages to limp forward at all. Even if the NEA message were forward-thinking and empowering, who would ever hear it??
But the backwards media is just a symptom. Witness NEA's reporting-- reporting!!-- last week on the growing test revolt. They offer a warmed-over recounting of what's going on and some words of support-- all in reference to one of the biggest movements currently going on in education, and with which the NEA has absolutely nothing to do. The new NEA Today tagline might as well be "Reporting the News That's Important in Education, But To Which NEA Is Irrelevant."
Do I think it can get better? I have my doubts. In an organization this hidebound you don't rise up through the ranks by doing anything that rocks the boat. And it's very hard to turn around an organization that believes its members are to be managed rather than listened to.
But I'd like it to be possible, if for no other reason than it would be nearly impossible in today's climate to create something from scratch like what NEA is supposed to be. I don't think we can make an impression on the national union, but I think we have a better shot in some cases of getting a useful response from the state-level association, and I think the states could get through to the national corporate level. If anybody has the contacts or means of doing that, sooner is probably better than later, because the process will be slow. After all, we might have to wait for the national office to type a response out on their remington and send it by pennyfarthing messenger.
Edupreneuring Hard Rock Instructional Boondogglery
Are you too non-rich to attend Camp Philos, the philosophical retreat for educational thought leaders at Lake Placid this summer? Then 2014 Rock the Core! may be for you! If nothing else-- it provides an object lesson in edtrepreneurship in action.
Rock the Core will take place June 9-11 at the Hard Rock Casino in Biloxi MS. 2014 Rock the Core is the fancy name for the 2014 New Teacher Institute, which is put on by the New Teacher People. Despite the remarkable initiallary coincidence, this is TNTP (which used to stand for The New Teacher Project but now, well, doesn't (kind of like KFC). None of that is easily discernible by looking at the website for the event.
A search for "The New Teacher People" turns up nothing but the website promoting this, well, let's call it a Training Convention Boondoggle (TCB). A search for "The New Teacher Insitute" turns up the same plus a press release or two, but from that we learn that the founder of the group is Candance McClendon, and that this is the third annual such gathering.
We're clearly working a different market here than the Lake Placid philosophers' gathering. Instead of skiing, it's beach vollyball. Instead of a private massage, there's a hotel pool. But Hard Rock has excelled at turning an okay idea into a mass-produced franchise of numbing sameness, loved by tourists and hated by locals, so it seems like a better location for CCSS conventioneering than a former Olympic site. I think Ms. McClendon nailed it with that choice. So who is Candace McClendon, and how did she end up with her own special teacher consulting business?
Ms. McClendon has a project (The Future of Education) on fundrazr on which she tells her story.
I never wanted to be a teacher. I completed my entire high school and college career with a fierce passion for writing and creating narratives. I wanted to be a journalist. I had the goods, and I had spent the majority of my teens idolizing the editors in those glossy magazines. Needless to say, my senior year in college, I decided I was unprepared to live the fast life in New York City, so I opted for a year of teaching to save money. My life has never been the same.
She spent six years in the classroom and five as an educational consultant. Her Linkedin profile lists her as the owner of McClendon Education Group, LLC, (founded August 2009) which is based in MS but does not have a website of its own. The New Teacher People is another one of her companies, which puts on the New Teacher Institute in the summer, and also, apparently has a newsletter and Saturday Academies. This is all way more than you can glean from the site itself.
About Us takes you to some vaguely worded puff about change, students, world shaping and the need to "move expeditiously to prepare our youth for what's to come." We (who remain nameless throughout) have selected all sorts of current and former educators to create a "personalized product."
The registration page asks "Are you an advocate of Common Core?" The site promises engaging professional development (not the same old "sit and git") that will show you "what CCSS will 'look' like in a classroom/school like yours (i.e struggling learners, below grade level readers, state test driven, low student morale, time management issues)." I can't explain the inappropriately quotationed "look," but I am curious if the Institute will address Common Core's role in creating some of those problems. There's also a crack about fifty slides of PowerPoint which became ironic when I found this promotional video for the event which looks a lot like, well, bad PowerPoint (though it does use Pharrell's "Happy" as a sound track, and I love that song and appreciate that Pharrell got some of these peoples' money when they paid for the rights. You guys totally paid for the rights to use that, right?
Keynote speaker is Sandra Alberti from the Student Achievement Partners, the group founded by David Coleman, Susan Pimetal and Jason Zimba tocash in on CCSS help assimilate more tools help all students and teachers achieve good stuff. Notes the site, "One of our powerful keynotes, Achieve the Core, is founded by a writer of the Common Core State Standards. How close to an authentic look at CCSS can you get than that." It's possible Ms. McClendon hasn't finished proofreading.
Also speaking will be Adam Dovico from the Ron Clark Academy, and now I'm wondering how is Ron Clark doing these days, because he has to be looking at many of these uplifty no excuse charter-loving reformy stuffs and thinking, "Damn! I was a man ahead of my time." Anyway, he'll be here to collect a fee as well. And apparently State Rep Jeremy Anderson is coming as well.
The site has a resources page that plugs work from Chester Finn, Mark Oshea, Lucy Calkins, and Robyn Jackson as well as links to the CCSS themselves. Accommodations are a conventioneer-friendly $169/night, and the conference itself is a mere $299 (early) or $349 (after April 30). There are only 350 seats, so act now.
And there is a pdf for presentation proposals, but those were due by March 4th. I'm bummed to have found this too late. I was thinking that if I can't raise the money for Camp Philos, I could have put in a proposal to present "How to Deal with CCSS Foolishness and Boondogglery" or "How to Cash in on New Educational Baloney."
Ms. McClendon is to be commended for her edrepreneurial spirit; she's clearly not one of the big fish (SAP is only sending a "staff" person?!) but she has marked out her own corner of the market and with a little pluck and a webdesigner, she's propped herself up as reformer-for-hire. With a shiny website and everything! I'm not sure that we can blame this sort of thing on Common Core; as long as folks are interested in a nominally work-related vacation on the Gulf Coast, this sort of educational profiteering will always be with us. Still, as another protional video reminds us, Mississippi is looking at full-on Core onslaught in August of 2014, so that sense of manufactured urgency can't hurt. 350 seats times $300 makes $105K which is a not too shabby take for a weekend convention. And if Ms. McClendon gets lucky at the slots, she may really cash in.
Rock the Core will take place June 9-11 at the Hard Rock Casino in Biloxi MS. 2014 Rock the Core is the fancy name for the 2014 New Teacher Institute, which is put on by the New Teacher People. Despite the remarkable initiallary coincidence, this is TNTP (which used to stand for The New Teacher Project but now, well, doesn't (kind of like KFC). None of that is easily discernible by looking at the website for the event.
A search for "The New Teacher People" turns up nothing but the website promoting this, well, let's call it a Training Convention Boondoggle (TCB). A search for "The New Teacher Insitute" turns up the same plus a press release or two, but from that we learn that the founder of the group is Candance McClendon, and that this is the third annual such gathering.
We're clearly working a different market here than the Lake Placid philosophers' gathering. Instead of skiing, it's beach vollyball. Instead of a private massage, there's a hotel pool. But Hard Rock has excelled at turning an okay idea into a mass-produced franchise of numbing sameness, loved by tourists and hated by locals, so it seems like a better location for CCSS conventioneering than a former Olympic site. I think Ms. McClendon nailed it with that choice. So who is Candace McClendon, and how did she end up with her own special teacher consulting business?
Ms. McClendon has a project (The Future of Education) on fundrazr on which she tells her story.
I never wanted to be a teacher. I completed my entire high school and college career with a fierce passion for writing and creating narratives. I wanted to be a journalist. I had the goods, and I had spent the majority of my teens idolizing the editors in those glossy magazines. Needless to say, my senior year in college, I decided I was unprepared to live the fast life in New York City, so I opted for a year of teaching to save money. My life has never been the same.
She spent six years in the classroom and five as an educational consultant. Her Linkedin profile lists her as the owner of McClendon Education Group, LLC, (founded August 2009) which is based in MS but does not have a website of its own. The New Teacher People is another one of her companies, which puts on the New Teacher Institute in the summer, and also, apparently has a newsletter and Saturday Academies. This is all way more than you can glean from the site itself.
About Us takes you to some vaguely worded puff about change, students, world shaping and the need to "move expeditiously to prepare our youth for what's to come." We (who remain nameless throughout) have selected all sorts of current and former educators to create a "personalized product."
The registration page asks "Are you an advocate of Common Core?" The site promises engaging professional development (not the same old "sit and git") that will show you "what CCSS will 'look' like in a classroom/school like yours (i.e struggling learners, below grade level readers, state test driven, low student morale, time management issues)." I can't explain the inappropriately quotationed "look," but I am curious if the Institute will address Common Core's role in creating some of those problems. There's also a crack about fifty slides of PowerPoint which became ironic when I found this promotional video for the event which looks a lot like, well, bad PowerPoint (though it does use Pharrell's "Happy" as a sound track, and I love that song and appreciate that Pharrell got some of these peoples' money when they paid for the rights. You guys totally paid for the rights to use that, right?
Keynote speaker is Sandra Alberti from the Student Achievement Partners, the group founded by David Coleman, Susan Pimetal and Jason Zimba to
Also speaking will be Adam Dovico from the Ron Clark Academy, and now I'm wondering how is Ron Clark doing these days, because he has to be looking at many of these uplifty no excuse charter-loving reformy stuffs and thinking, "Damn! I was a man ahead of my time." Anyway, he'll be here to collect a fee as well. And apparently State Rep Jeremy Anderson is coming as well.
The site has a resources page that plugs work from Chester Finn, Mark Oshea, Lucy Calkins, and Robyn Jackson as well as links to the CCSS themselves. Accommodations are a conventioneer-friendly $169/night, and the conference itself is a mere $299 (early) or $349 (after April 30). There are only 350 seats, so act now.
And there is a pdf for presentation proposals, but those were due by March 4th. I'm bummed to have found this too late. I was thinking that if I can't raise the money for Camp Philos, I could have put in a proposal to present "How to Deal with CCSS Foolishness and Boondogglery" or "How to Cash in on New Educational Baloney."
Ms. McClendon is to be commended for her edrepreneurial spirit; she's clearly not one of the big fish (SAP is only sending a "staff" person?!) but she has marked out her own corner of the market and with a little pluck and a webdesigner, she's propped herself up as reformer-for-hire. With a shiny website and everything! I'm not sure that we can blame this sort of thing on Common Core; as long as folks are interested in a nominally work-related vacation on the Gulf Coast, this sort of educational profiteering will always be with us. Still, as another protional video reminds us, Mississippi is looking at full-on Core onslaught in August of 2014, so that sense of manufactured urgency can't hurt. 350 seats times $300 makes $105K which is a not too shabby take for a weekend convention. And if Ms. McClendon gets lucky at the slots, she may really cash in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)