In the 1940's the Office of Strategic Services was the US precursor to the CIA, collecting information and taking covert action in support of US interests overseas.
Well, now you, too, can enjoy the secrets of subterfuge by perusing the 1944 OSS classic, Simple Sabotage Field Manual. I am not making this up. Last year the CIA de-classified the manual, and you can now give it a read. It's actually a brief thirty-four pamphlet-sized pages, and while I've read it, you may well want to take a look. Does it have applications in the education world? Oh, my. Yes.
First, what audience was such a manual designed for?
Sabotage varies from highly technical coup de main acts that require detailed planning and the use of specially-trained operatives, to innumerable simple acts which the ordinary individual citizen-saboteur can perform. This paper is primarily concerned with the latter type.
No special equipment is involved; no high risk is faced. Just simple things you can do to screw up an enterprise with ordinary tools you'll find lying around the house.
The manual contains some words about motivating the civilian saboteur-- making him feel he's part of a larger cause, fighting destructive foes. But then we get to the fun-- the specific techniques.
The most simple principle is reversing thinking-- you can screw up an enterprise just by being lazy and careless. Let your tools get dull. Make dumb mistakes at work. "Frequently you
can 'get away' with such acts under the cover of pretending stupidity,
ignorance, over-caution, fear of being suspected of sabotage, or
weakness and dullness due to undernourishment."
But the manual has more specifics as well. There are many pages about how to mess up buildings, engines, water supplies, radio, even movies. But it's when we get to more office and managerial concerns that some of this sabotage will start to sound familiar.
The really choice stuff comes under the heading of How To Screw Up Organizations and Conferences. To make a mess out of these, you can do some of the following:
* Insist on always working through channels; oppose efficiency
* Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great
length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes and accounts of
personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate
"patriotic" comments.
* When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study
and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible
— never less than five.
* Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
Does this seem like some of the committee meetings at your school, or on the legislative level? Shall I remind you that these are the CIA's instructions on how to make committees NOT work.
If you are a manager or supervisor, you can screw up your area with the following (to list a few)
* always demand written instructions, then misunderstand them
* insist on high quality materials that are hard to get
* insist on perfect work on relatively unimportant products
* assign the worst people to the most important jobs
* destroy morale by being pleasant to lousy workers and unpleasant to good ones
* call meetings when work needs to be done
* multiply paperwork
If you are an employee, you can screw things up with these techniques
* work slowly; contrive many interruptions
* never pass on your skill or experience to new workers
* mix good parts with scrap
Of course, if you wanted to screw up a system, you could force workers to do these things.
Finally, techniques to just generally ruin morale and create confusion
* Give lengthy and incomprehensible explanations
* Act stupid
Some of the manual deals very specifically with Nazi occupiers, but there's plenty in the manual that applies in more general ways, ways that may seem very familiar to some folks. The next time you are watching the actions of local, state or federal folks in education and thinking, "Man, they couldn't screw things up worse if they were doing it on purpose"-- well, now you have some support for the truth of that statement.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Gates Odd Good News
Back in mid-December, Bill Gates blogged about the top six good news stories of 2015. It's a fair enough list except for one notable and head-scratching inclusion.
Items on the list include:
* Africa went a year without a single polio case.
* Neil deGrasse Tyson won an award and made a bad-ass short speech in support of science
* The Nobel Prize went to developers of a cure for a widespread disease for the poor
* Mobile banking did really well in Kenya
* Rubella appears to have been wiped out in the Americas
And those are all pretty good news stories, even if they aren't particularly sexy or mainstream media-ready. But the list also includes this item (at spot #4)
* Khan Academy offers free SAT prep
First of all, unless you have access to a free computer with free internet connections, the Khan Academy materials are not "free."
Second, I have even better news-- nobody needs to take the damn SAT in the first place! The SAT test is a product produced by a for-profit corporation; why Gates wants to include a advertisement for that company in the midst of his "good news" is a puzzler. Not only that, but it is the number two product of its type, in the midst of a redesign to claw back some market share from the ACT.
There are so many odd assumptions buried here, not the least of which is the idea that everyone should go to college and everyone needs to take the SAT to get there.
But more significant is the repeat of the notion that the only reason that socio-economic status correlates so strongly with standardized test results is that wealthy folks have better access to test prep materials. It's the same batch of assumptions we find in Gates support of the Common Core-- a standardized test is an excellent measure of your education, and a good education is just a big bunch of test prep for that test. So Common Core, a giant test prep program from CCSS Big Standardized Tests, is a Good Thing that will benefit the poor.
Sometimes I think public education advocates really way overthink Gates' support of ed reforminess, ascribing all sorts of Byzantine motivations and wheels within wheels when really, it's just as simple as a really rich, smart, powerful guy who never spent much time in school and who has a seriously stunted, small and flat-out wrong idea of how education works.
Items on the list include:
* Africa went a year without a single polio case.
* Neil deGrasse Tyson won an award and made a bad-ass short speech in support of science
* The Nobel Prize went to developers of a cure for a widespread disease for the poor
* Mobile banking did really well in Kenya
* Rubella appears to have been wiped out in the Americas
And those are all pretty good news stories, even if they aren't particularly sexy or mainstream media-ready. But the list also includes this item (at spot #4)
* Khan Academy offers free SAT prep
First of all, unless you have access to a free computer with free internet connections, the Khan Academy materials are not "free."
Second, I have even better news-- nobody needs to take the damn SAT in the first place! The SAT test is a product produced by a for-profit corporation; why Gates wants to include a advertisement for that company in the midst of his "good news" is a puzzler. Not only that, but it is the number two product of its type, in the midst of a redesign to claw back some market share from the ACT.
There are so many odd assumptions buried here, not the least of which is the idea that everyone should go to college and everyone needs to take the SAT to get there.
But more significant is the repeat of the notion that the only reason that socio-economic status correlates so strongly with standardized test results is that wealthy folks have better access to test prep materials. It's the same batch of assumptions we find in Gates support of the Common Core-- a standardized test is an excellent measure of your education, and a good education is just a big bunch of test prep for that test. So Common Core, a giant test prep program from CCSS Big Standardized Tests, is a Good Thing that will benefit the poor.
Sometimes I think public education advocates really way overthink Gates' support of ed reforminess, ascribing all sorts of Byzantine motivations and wheels within wheels when really, it's just as simple as a really rich, smart, powerful guy who never spent much time in school and who has a seriously stunted, small and flat-out wrong idea of how education works.
ICYMI: Big List for the New Year!
Must be the holidays-- either I was reading more or people were writing more. But the list of must-reads this week is long.
In America, Only the Rich Can Afford To Write about Poverty
This came out back in August, but this Guardian piece by Barbara Ehrenreich (Nickled and Dimed) reflecting on how most writing about poverty is done by people who are anything but poor-- this is well worth the read.
The Inside Story on What Really Caused the Occupy Wall Streer Movement To Collapse
Another non-education piece, but in the process of talking about the meltdown of the Occupy movement by an insider, this has much to say about how movements can lose their way,
The Martian Allegory of Whose Lives Matter
Paul Thomas's brain lives at he intersection of deep thinking and pop culture, and consequently he produces pieces that nobody else can. Here he takes a look at The Martian and what it tells us about just who is worth time, effort and expense to save.
Staring Down Goliath
Super profile of Justin Oakley, the Just Let Me Teach wristbands, and his new message to teachers-- Vote. Or. Die.
Gross National Happiness
From the Teacher Tom blog-- a look at other ways of measuring the success of children.
Students, Not Standards in 2016
Yes, Paul Thomas again, this time remembering an influential teacher in his own life, and reminding us where the focus should be in a classroom.
Look Out 2016
At educarenow, Bill Boyle takes a look at the language of deficit and how a few simple word choices signal a serious problem in approaching the "problems" of schools.
Um-- There Are These Kids We Call Students
Ah, a rant after my own heart. Blue Cereal Education rips reformers about the use of students as passive props in their reformy melodrama.
Of course, the end of the year is always a time for listicles. Consider this top post list from the always-essential Jose Luis Vilson or this list of book recommendations from Russ Walsh or check out Nancy Bailey's list of good news from 2015 and even Rick Hess's tongue-in-cheek list of 2016 news stories.
And finally, here's Valerie Strauss and Carol Burris's primer on why nobody is exactly excited about having John King as Acting Pretend Secretary of Education.
In America, Only the Rich Can Afford To Write about Poverty
This came out back in August, but this Guardian piece by Barbara Ehrenreich (Nickled and Dimed) reflecting on how most writing about poverty is done by people who are anything but poor-- this is well worth the read.
The Inside Story on What Really Caused the Occupy Wall Streer Movement To Collapse
Another non-education piece, but in the process of talking about the meltdown of the Occupy movement by an insider, this has much to say about how movements can lose their way,
The Martian Allegory of Whose Lives Matter
Paul Thomas's brain lives at he intersection of deep thinking and pop culture, and consequently he produces pieces that nobody else can. Here he takes a look at The Martian and what it tells us about just who is worth time, effort and expense to save.
Staring Down Goliath
Super profile of Justin Oakley, the Just Let Me Teach wristbands, and his new message to teachers-- Vote. Or. Die.
Gross National Happiness
From the Teacher Tom blog-- a look at other ways of measuring the success of children.
Students, Not Standards in 2016
Yes, Paul Thomas again, this time remembering an influential teacher in his own life, and reminding us where the focus should be in a classroom.
Look Out 2016
At educarenow, Bill Boyle takes a look at the language of deficit and how a few simple word choices signal a serious problem in approaching the "problems" of schools.
Um-- There Are These Kids We Call Students
Ah, a rant after my own heart. Blue Cereal Education rips reformers about the use of students as passive props in their reformy melodrama.
Of course, the end of the year is always a time for listicles. Consider this top post list from the always-essential Jose Luis Vilson or this list of book recommendations from Russ Walsh or check out Nancy Bailey's list of good news from 2015 and even Rick Hess's tongue-in-cheek list of 2016 news stories.
And finally, here's Valerie Strauss and Carol Burris's primer on why nobody is exactly excited about having John King as Acting Pretend Secretary of Education.
Saturday, January 2, 2016
Resolutions for USED
After I earlier took a swipe at Acting Pretend Secretary of Education John King's resolutions for the new year, blogger, author, activist and fellow trombonist Jose Luis Vilson asked me what my resolutions would be, were I the Secretary of Education. It's a fun question, so here we go-- if hell froze over and I were writing the resolutions for the Ed Secretary's office, here's what I would resolve:
That we will do everything possible to see that each community in America has the tools and support it needed to create and maintain the great local school system that it dreamed of.
That means local control, local decision-making, local vision of what the schools should be. Every single community in America is different, and that means that every school is different, with different needs, goals, resources and aspirations. And nobody knows all of those factors better than the people in that community. But not all communities have the resources and support needed to make their dreams real. We will make sure that the USED is there to get them those resources-- and that does not mean giving some corporation a contract to provide what we decide the community needs. We will not tell the community what they need; they will tell us. If that means a lot of corporate interests go hungry, so be it.
We will not be there to tell them what "great" must look like or what goals they must embrace, or else. We will be there to make sure that no school's vision denies basic principles of democracy or law in this country; no community will be allowed to exclude or deny some families their hope for their children's future. There can be no great schools without justice.
We will also be there to demand that our fellow agencies help. Where poverty, racism, and chaos are disrupting a community, it is hard to build a great school. Partnership between state and federal government can help build the solid community foundation on which communities can build great schools.
We will not abandon communities by silencing democracy and closing schools. We will strive for an America in which no community is left behind, stripped of voice and forced to send its children elsewhere. We will not try to enforce a one-size-fits-all top-down definition of excellence on every community in America.
That we will end the tyranny of federally mandated standardized testing.
Yes, annual standardized tests of reading and math are written into the ESSA, and I resolve that the department will devote a budget of $1.99 and three hours a week from our youngest intern to making sure that law is followed.
Big Standardized Tests have made a twisted toxic mess out of education policy. We're done. Just as in the past we have bent the rules to enforce policy that had no force of law behind it, we will find ways to discourage the scourge of BS Testing.
That we will seek out and include teacher voices. Also, parents and students.
I am going to track down the teachers who are strong, influential forces for good in their communities. I will not have them apply to come be heard and insist that they be vetted for unwelcome attitudes. I will track them down, find where they teach, travel to sit in their classrooms, and listen to what they have to say. I mean, actually listen. Does that sound time consuming? Very well-- I will travel the public schools of this country in a well-teched-out bus. After all, what reason is there for me to be hunkered down in DC, other than it makes it easier for lobbyists to find me in the office. For more than half of my work year, I will run this office from the road.
That market forces are incompatible with a free, open, equitable public education system, and we will say so, and act like we mean it.
Period. Not since trickle-down economics has such a groundless basis for policy gotten as much play as "market forces will make public schools excellent." It's baloney. We're done with it.
Finally, about this job.
There's so much more I could resolve about, but King kept his list to just three items and I've already doubled that. So let me finish by resolving to give this job to somebody way wiser than I am so that I can get back to my own classroom.
That we will do everything possible to see that each community in America has the tools and support it needed to create and maintain the great local school system that it dreamed of.
That means local control, local decision-making, local vision of what the schools should be. Every single community in America is different, and that means that every school is different, with different needs, goals, resources and aspirations. And nobody knows all of those factors better than the people in that community. But not all communities have the resources and support needed to make their dreams real. We will make sure that the USED is there to get them those resources-- and that does not mean giving some corporation a contract to provide what we decide the community needs. We will not tell the community what they need; they will tell us. If that means a lot of corporate interests go hungry, so be it.
We will not be there to tell them what "great" must look like or what goals they must embrace, or else. We will be there to make sure that no school's vision denies basic principles of democracy or law in this country; no community will be allowed to exclude or deny some families their hope for their children's future. There can be no great schools without justice.
We will also be there to demand that our fellow agencies help. Where poverty, racism, and chaos are disrupting a community, it is hard to build a great school. Partnership between state and federal government can help build the solid community foundation on which communities can build great schools.
We will not abandon communities by silencing democracy and closing schools. We will strive for an America in which no community is left behind, stripped of voice and forced to send its children elsewhere. We will not try to enforce a one-size-fits-all top-down definition of excellence on every community in America.
That we will end the tyranny of federally mandated standardized testing.
Yes, annual standardized tests of reading and math are written into the ESSA, and I resolve that the department will devote a budget of $1.99 and three hours a week from our youngest intern to making sure that law is followed.
Big Standardized Tests have made a twisted toxic mess out of education policy. We're done. Just as in the past we have bent the rules to enforce policy that had no force of law behind it, we will find ways to discourage the scourge of BS Testing.
That we will seek out and include teacher voices. Also, parents and students.
I am going to track down the teachers who are strong, influential forces for good in their communities. I will not have them apply to come be heard and insist that they be vetted for unwelcome attitudes. I will track them down, find where they teach, travel to sit in their classrooms, and listen to what they have to say. I mean, actually listen. Does that sound time consuming? Very well-- I will travel the public schools of this country in a well-teched-out bus. After all, what reason is there for me to be hunkered down in DC, other than it makes it easier for lobbyists to find me in the office. For more than half of my work year, I will run this office from the road.
That market forces are incompatible with a free, open, equitable public education system, and we will say so, and act like we mean it.
Period. Not since trickle-down economics has such a groundless basis for policy gotten as much play as "market forces will make public schools excellent." It's baloney. We're done with it.
Finally, about this job.
There's so much more I could resolve about, but King kept his list to just three items and I've already doubled that. So let me finish by resolving to give this job to somebody way wiser than I am so that I can get back to my own classroom.
PA: Big Bucks, Big Data and Big Kafka
For the "Maybe You Got Into the Wrong Line of Work" file, courtesy of the fine people at Opt Out Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania's Department of Education late in 2015 (back when our legislature's failure to pass a budget was just a disaster and not yet an appalling, embarrassing disaster) awarded a grant for the expansion of the Pennsylvania Information Management System (PIMS).
The expansion is supposed to make the educator dashboard "more usable, enhance its functionality and increase dashboard adoption by stakeholders." In other words, the state has noticed that hardly anybody uses PIMS because it's a huge pain in the butt that yields little useful information but takes half of your planning period just to try to navigate.
The state would also like to "provide training to participating LEAs and have access to tools and professional support materials that assist them to better use data to support instructional decision-making." In other words, they would like us to use test results to decide what to do in our classroom.
Of course, part of the problem with using test data to drive instruction is that in PA, as in many states, the intellectual property interests of the test manufacturers are valued over the instructional interests of the schools, teachers, and students. Before we give the test, we all take sign an oath that we will not look at the test, and if we inadvertently see it, we will never ever reveal what we've seen or use it with our students.
When we get test results, we see, at first, raw scores. That's it. Eventually, in some years, we may see a breakdown by standards (Chris got score X for "drawing inferences"). But we will never, ever, see exactly what questions were missed by which students, or what wrong answers they chose. It is the very definition of Kafkaesque-- this student took a test and got this grade, and you must insure that the student gets a better grade next time, but you may not see any of the specifics of this test nor anything that might show you exactly where the student messed up.
You must shoot at a target in the dark. We will tell you whether you hit the target or not, but not which direction you were off. Now shoot again and do better.
It does not appear that any of that is going to be fixed. But we will get a shinier website for looking at the useless data. Yay?
The grant is also so that PIMS can be improved as a one stop shop "to expand capacity for research and evaluation by creating more open and transparent access to education data overall. Establish a state research agenda, form collaborative research partnerships and increase internal capacity to conduct research." In other words, we need to fix the things up so that we can more easily share student data with way more people.
How many tax dollars have been put behind this newly improvey initiative? Over the next four years, the state is granting $6,999,928 to this task (I really wish I could have heard the conversation in whch someone decided to hold back the $72 to make this an even seven million). I cannot wait to see what almost-seven-million buys you for a data system.
Pennsylvania's Department of Education late in 2015 (back when our legislature's failure to pass a budget was just a disaster and not yet an appalling, embarrassing disaster) awarded a grant for the expansion of the Pennsylvania Information Management System (PIMS).
The expansion is supposed to make the educator dashboard "more usable, enhance its functionality and increase dashboard adoption by stakeholders." In other words, the state has noticed that hardly anybody uses PIMS because it's a huge pain in the butt that yields little useful information but takes half of your planning period just to try to navigate.
The state would also like to "provide training to participating LEAs and have access to tools and professional support materials that assist them to better use data to support instructional decision-making." In other words, they would like us to use test results to decide what to do in our classroom.
Of course, part of the problem with using test data to drive instruction is that in PA, as in many states, the intellectual property interests of the test manufacturers are valued over the instructional interests of the schools, teachers, and students. Before we give the test, we all take sign an oath that we will not look at the test, and if we inadvertently see it, we will never ever reveal what we've seen or use it with our students.
When we get test results, we see, at first, raw scores. That's it. Eventually, in some years, we may see a breakdown by standards (Chris got score X for "drawing inferences"). But we will never, ever, see exactly what questions were missed by which students, or what wrong answers they chose. It is the very definition of Kafkaesque-- this student took a test and got this grade, and you must insure that the student gets a better grade next time, but you may not see any of the specifics of this test nor anything that might show you exactly where the student messed up.
You must shoot at a target in the dark. We will tell you whether you hit the target or not, but not which direction you were off. Now shoot again and do better.
It does not appear that any of that is going to be fixed. But we will get a shinier website for looking at the useless data. Yay?
The grant is also so that PIMS can be improved as a one stop shop "to expand capacity for research and evaluation by creating more open and transparent access to education data overall. Establish a state research agenda, form collaborative research partnerships and increase internal capacity to conduct research." In other words, we need to fix the things up so that we can more easily share student data with way more people.
How many tax dollars have been put behind this newly improvey initiative? Over the next four years, the state is granting $6,999,928 to this task (I really wish I could have heard the conversation in whch someone decided to hold back the $72 to make this an even seven million). I cannot wait to see what almost-seven-million buys you for a data system.
John King's New Year
New Acting Pretend Secretary of Education John King hit the ground running with New Year's wishes and this New year's tweet
Now, it's not that anybody is watching King carefully to see which way he's going to jump-- his tenure as education chief in New York State already tells us what to expect. He has an inspiring back story, from which he himself appears to have missed the most important lessons. He has a healthy ego, but he is not so keen on dealing with the public. The first words of his twitter profile are "Taught HS social studies" but not "for only a couple of years in a charter school." King is a fine example of a test-and-punish, privatizing reformster policy leader.
His three resolutions are... well, interesting.
Working to ensure that every student in America-- regardless of zip code or background-- has the opportunities a high-quality education provides.
First, let's note what this doesn't say. It doesn't say "Making sure that every community is served by a great school in their own zip code."
Second, "working to ensure" is politician to "try real hard" which may be more realistic than saying, "we are going to do this" but is also less aspirational. Given the lofty aspirations that USED likes to set for teachers and students, it seems like a lowball.
Finally-- the opportunities a high-quality education provides. That's a lot to unlock. When a wealthy, well-connected scion of a wealthy, well-connected family lands a great job opportunity, was that opportunity provided by education, or something else? This is a statement that invokes "zip code and background," the new euphemism for "non-wealthy and non-white" that pretends that socio-economic issues descend like weather systems upon randomly selected neighborhoods-- it invokes all that, and then goes out of its way to ignore the role of poverty, race and class on opportunity in this country. We really need to have an honest conversation about what opportunities a high-quality education opens up. Mind you, I have a high opinion of the value of a high-quality education, and if I had my way, every student in America would get one. But to continue with this fiction that just fixing up some schools will create economic mobility and shrink the yawning chasm of economic inequality in this country is the silliest kind of fiction.
Supporting our nation's educators and elevating the teaching profession.
A good way to elevate the teaching profession would be to treat teachers like they are important education experts worth listening to. Imagine a world where, before something like ESSA could pass, every legislator says, "Hold on-- I can't vote on this until I have some teachers from my home district look at it and tell me what they think." Imagine a Department of Education that actually incorporates and listens to working teachers-- and not just hand-picked ones who have established that they will not say anything that makes the department bureaucrats sad. In fact-- and I know I'm talking crazy talk here-- imagine a world where a career as a working public school teacher was considered a necessity to serve as Secretary of Education.
Of course, we'll just have to imagine. Because in this world, "elevate the profession" means "make up more rules and regulations to force the profession to look more the way we wise bureaucrats think it should look." Thanks a lot, guys.
Improving access, affordability, and completion in higher education for all.
We have got to talk about this fetishization of college education. I like college. I support college. Went there, sent both my kids there. But the world also needs all sorts of people who don't need college degrees (you can still put on a blindfold, throw a dart at a map, and hit some place where you can go find a well-paying job as a welder). Public education has always suffered from a pro-college bias that does not always serve the needs of students or community, but we are veering closer and closer to a world where education policy says, "Look, kid, I don't care what you want to be when you grow up. The US wants a higher college attendance-completion rate so we can look good when we're hanging out with Estonia, so write a check, take out some loans, and get in there. Major in something."
This talk of affordability is particularly nervy, because the feds in general and the USED in particular have done exactly jack squat to make college affordable (including giving up the huge profits that the feds pocket from college loans).
But this is one of the hallmarks of reformsterism-- we can make education better by forcing more students to become customers of this testing service, or this charter school, or this college.
The missing
I could devote a mile of scrolling screenery to all the things that Acting Pretend Secretary King doesn't address, like empowering communities to create and steer their schools, or pushing states to fully fund all schools, or demanding that each school provide a full range of services, or declaring that the Big Standardized Tests are a waste of everyone's time, so the USED will be spending $0.00 on enforcing compliance with ESSA's testing demands.
He could make a call for more social and economic justice. He could demand that every zip code be a place where students can be free from danger and hunger so that they can focus on education. He could resolve to actually listen to parents and teachers and students. He could resolve to open his mind to a fuller idea of what a high-quality education is beyond "one that results in high test scores in math and reading."
But he didn't. First day on the job, and Acting Pretend Secretary King is already living up to our low expectations of him. Just once I would like a politician to surprise me in a good way. But that is not how we're going to start the year at USED.
As 2016 begins, I resolve to work hard for students, teachers, and anyone seeking a better life through education pic.twitter.com/8h8XqfkWXT
— John King (@JohnKingatED) January 1, 2016
Now, it's not that anybody is watching King carefully to see which way he's going to jump-- his tenure as education chief in New York State already tells us what to expect. He has an inspiring back story, from which he himself appears to have missed the most important lessons. He has a healthy ego, but he is not so keen on dealing with the public. The first words of his twitter profile are "Taught HS social studies" but not "for only a couple of years in a charter school." King is a fine example of a test-and-punish, privatizing reformster policy leader.
His three resolutions are... well, interesting.
Working to ensure that every student in America-- regardless of zip code or background-- has the opportunities a high-quality education provides.
First, let's note what this doesn't say. It doesn't say "Making sure that every community is served by a great school in their own zip code."
Second, "working to ensure" is politician to "try real hard" which may be more realistic than saying, "we are going to do this" but is also less aspirational. Given the lofty aspirations that USED likes to set for teachers and students, it seems like a lowball.
Finally-- the opportunities a high-quality education provides. That's a lot to unlock. When a wealthy, well-connected scion of a wealthy, well-connected family lands a great job opportunity, was that opportunity provided by education, or something else? This is a statement that invokes "zip code and background," the new euphemism for "non-wealthy and non-white" that pretends that socio-economic issues descend like weather systems upon randomly selected neighborhoods-- it invokes all that, and then goes out of its way to ignore the role of poverty, race and class on opportunity in this country. We really need to have an honest conversation about what opportunities a high-quality education opens up. Mind you, I have a high opinion of the value of a high-quality education, and if I had my way, every student in America would get one. But to continue with this fiction that just fixing up some schools will create economic mobility and shrink the yawning chasm of economic inequality in this country is the silliest kind of fiction.
Supporting our nation's educators and elevating the teaching profession.
A good way to elevate the teaching profession would be to treat teachers like they are important education experts worth listening to. Imagine a world where, before something like ESSA could pass, every legislator says, "Hold on-- I can't vote on this until I have some teachers from my home district look at it and tell me what they think." Imagine a Department of Education that actually incorporates and listens to working teachers-- and not just hand-picked ones who have established that they will not say anything that makes the department bureaucrats sad. In fact-- and I know I'm talking crazy talk here-- imagine a world where a career as a working public school teacher was considered a necessity to serve as Secretary of Education.
Of course, we'll just have to imagine. Because in this world, "elevate the profession" means "make up more rules and regulations to force the profession to look more the way we wise bureaucrats think it should look." Thanks a lot, guys.
Improving access, affordability, and completion in higher education for all.
We have got to talk about this fetishization of college education. I like college. I support college. Went there, sent both my kids there. But the world also needs all sorts of people who don't need college degrees (you can still put on a blindfold, throw a dart at a map, and hit some place where you can go find a well-paying job as a welder). Public education has always suffered from a pro-college bias that does not always serve the needs of students or community, but we are veering closer and closer to a world where education policy says, "Look, kid, I don't care what you want to be when you grow up. The US wants a higher college attendance-completion rate so we can look good when we're hanging out with Estonia, so write a check, take out some loans, and get in there. Major in something."
This talk of affordability is particularly nervy, because the feds in general and the USED in particular have done exactly jack squat to make college affordable (including giving up the huge profits that the feds pocket from college loans).
But this is one of the hallmarks of reformsterism-- we can make education better by forcing more students to become customers of this testing service, or this charter school, or this college.
The missing
I could devote a mile of scrolling screenery to all the things that Acting Pretend Secretary King doesn't address, like empowering communities to create and steer their schools, or pushing states to fully fund all schools, or demanding that each school provide a full range of services, or declaring that the Big Standardized Tests are a waste of everyone's time, so the USED will be spending $0.00 on enforcing compliance with ESSA's testing demands.
He could make a call for more social and economic justice. He could demand that every zip code be a place where students can be free from danger and hunger so that they can focus on education. He could resolve to actually listen to parents and teachers and students. He could resolve to open his mind to a fuller idea of what a high-quality education is beyond "one that results in high test scores in math and reading."
But he didn't. First day on the job, and Acting Pretend Secretary King is already living up to our low expectations of him. Just once I would like a politician to surprise me in a good way. But that is not how we're going to start the year at USED.
Friday, January 1, 2016
The Best Lobbyists
Most industries are the subject of reports about the effectiveness of the various players. Why would the lobbying industry be any different? Let me introduce you to Bloomberg's quarterly report on the Best-Managed Lobbyists in the government sector.
We're going to look at the third-quarter report from 2015, and it starts by laying out the challenges of the current DC.
For lobbyists, Washington is growing more complex and more competitive. Lobbyists say their clients are more sophisticated. Clients expect more, despite there being fewer opportunities to influence legislation. Competition, lobbyists say, is intense–and growing.
Bloomberg notes that (in a sign of These Tough Times) that out of 1300 lobbying groups, only 22 are Bloomberg certified awesomesauce proficient performers who exceed expectations.
To be influential, firms need to be savvy about how they use information to get ahead. “There was a time when personal relationships were the only thing that mattered,” Greg Nickerson of the #1 ranked Washington Tax & Public Policy Group tells us (page 4). “Those days are gone.”
So what does the report tells us about these days. Well, there's a list of the top ten issues for which lobbies were filing (that's out of 79 possibilities). Budget is #1, followed by taxes. Number ten on the list? Education. So we're still in the lobbying world's top 10. Which begs the question-- why are so many lobbying firms lobbying education, and who are they lobbying for?
Whatever they're up to, it's not cheap. Bloomberg ranks the top ten industries on lobbying spending, and "Education Services" comes in at number three with $16.8 million spent on lobbying in just the third quarter.
The report rates the best of the lobbying world, based on four criteria (remember, relationships aren't enough any more)--
Growth (are they making more money every year?)
Accretive growth (they need to be getting more money from each client every year)
Client retention (can't just be churning up every year)
Employee profitability (keep talent happy and productive)
Says Tony Costello, Bloomberg's head of lobbying product and analysis, notes, "Quite frankly, these are the criteria you would track for any kind of business." Let's keep that in mind the next time someone is talking about treating schools like businesses.
The report also includes some brief interviews with leading lobby guys. Here are some choice moments.
Greg Nickerson: I truly believe the single most important factor to success in this business is earning the trust of your clients and of members of Congress and their staffs.
Matt Keelen: Lobbying has gone from “what can you do for me as a firm over the next several years” to “what have you done for me this week.”
Steve Clark: Lobbyists help clients understand, and effectively influence, the full range of politics and policy, whether it be lobbying, fundraising, agency expertise, coalition building, grassroots or working with press and media.
Dan Fans: We believe lobbying today is simply shorthand for a person who can provide solutions to diverse, complex issues in a proactive manner while dealing with unforeseen variables pretty much 24/7. Lobbyists provide critical information to policymakers that allow them to be better informed on the issues, which is coincidentally why lobbying is one of the few professions enumerated in the Constitution.
David Lugar: The biggest misconception is that somehow the profession is this awful group of people. But, during many legislative battles, the lobbyists help to give an honest assessment of how a particular policy might affect the economy and/or employment in a particular district or state. Often times one of the lobbyists might be one of the few with institutional knowledge. So in general there are a number of beneficial things we offer to the process.
Lugar makes me wonder-- what lobbyists in DC know anything at all about actual education? Making money from education, perhaps. The corporate ins and outs of benefitting from education policy, probably. But actual education? I suppose it doesn't matter. Nothing in this report suggests that top quality lobbyists actually do legwork, study and connecting with people who really know the business. Just keep making more money.
We're going to look at the third-quarter report from 2015, and it starts by laying out the challenges of the current DC.
For lobbyists, Washington is growing more complex and more competitive. Lobbyists say their clients are more sophisticated. Clients expect more, despite there being fewer opportunities to influence legislation. Competition, lobbyists say, is intense–and growing.
Bloomberg notes that (in a sign of These Tough Times) that out of 1300 lobbying groups, only 22 are Bloomberg certified awesomesauce proficient performers who exceed expectations.
To be influential, firms need to be savvy about how they use information to get ahead. “There was a time when personal relationships were the only thing that mattered,” Greg Nickerson of the #1 ranked Washington Tax & Public Policy Group tells us (page 4). “Those days are gone.”
So what does the report tells us about these days. Well, there's a list of the top ten issues for which lobbies were filing (that's out of 79 possibilities). Budget is #1, followed by taxes. Number ten on the list? Education. So we're still in the lobbying world's top 10. Which begs the question-- why are so many lobbying firms lobbying education, and who are they lobbying for?
Whatever they're up to, it's not cheap. Bloomberg ranks the top ten industries on lobbying spending, and "Education Services" comes in at number three with $16.8 million spent on lobbying in just the third quarter.
The report rates the best of the lobbying world, based on four criteria (remember, relationships aren't enough any more)--
Growth (are they making more money every year?)
Accretive growth (they need to be getting more money from each client every year)
Client retention (can't just be churning up every year)
Employee profitability (keep talent happy and productive)
Says Tony Costello, Bloomberg's head of lobbying product and analysis, notes, "Quite frankly, these are the criteria you would track for any kind of business." Let's keep that in mind the next time someone is talking about treating schools like businesses.
The report also includes some brief interviews with leading lobby guys. Here are some choice moments.
Greg Nickerson: I truly believe the single most important factor to success in this business is earning the trust of your clients and of members of Congress and their staffs.
Matt Keelen: Lobbying has gone from “what can you do for me as a firm over the next several years” to “what have you done for me this week.”
Steve Clark: Lobbyists help clients understand, and effectively influence, the full range of politics and policy, whether it be lobbying, fundraising, agency expertise, coalition building, grassroots or working with press and media.
Dan Fans: We believe lobbying today is simply shorthand for a person who can provide solutions to diverse, complex issues in a proactive manner while dealing with unforeseen variables pretty much 24/7. Lobbyists provide critical information to policymakers that allow them to be better informed on the issues, which is coincidentally why lobbying is one of the few professions enumerated in the Constitution.
David Lugar: The biggest misconception is that somehow the profession is this awful group of people. But, during many legislative battles, the lobbyists help to give an honest assessment of how a particular policy might affect the economy and/or employment in a particular district or state. Often times one of the lobbyists might be one of the few with institutional knowledge. So in general there are a number of beneficial things we offer to the process.
Lugar makes me wonder-- what lobbyists in DC know anything at all about actual education? Making money from education, perhaps. The corporate ins and outs of benefitting from education policy, probably. But actual education? I suppose it doesn't matter. Nothing in this report suggests that top quality lobbyists actually do legwork, study and connecting with people who really know the business. Just keep making more money.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)