Reliably bombastic blogger Mike Klonsky calls it “Education (indoctri)Nation.” Denver school board member Andrea Merida calls it “mass hysteria intended to soften public support for public schools and the teachers that serve children.”
My gosh, what is this we’re talking about? A newly discovered fascist plot to seize control of America’s schools?
You’d almost think so. But no, what Klonsky, Merida and many others are talking about is the recently concluded, weeklong NBC News extravaganza called Education Nation. Their reaction to this flawed attempt at advocacy journalism is emblematic of the state of our national education debate.
Education Nation consisted of panel discussions, TV specials, precious minutes of national news primetime, all given over to ruminations on education reform. This extravaganza was prompted in part by the impending national release of “Waiting for Superman,” a film that, whatever its merits and faults, has already achieved its stated goal of ramping up the conversation about public education in this country.
Given the super-heated atmosphere surrounding education politics, it’s not surprising that people overreacted to Education Nation. And let’s be honest: Education Nation wasn’t objective journalism’s finest hour. As Washington Post blogger Valerie Strauss said,
“The events, panels and discussions were sharply tilted toward Obama’s school reform agenda – focused in part on closing failing schools, expanding charter schools and using standardized test scores to evaluate teachers. It gave short shrift to the enormous backlash against the plan from educators and parents around the country who say that Obama’s education priorities won’t improve schools but will narrow curriculum and drive good teachers out of the profession.
“NBC seemed to take for granted that Obama’s education policies are sound and will be effective. Seasoned journalists failed to ask hard questions and fell all over their subjects to be sympathetic. It was a forum for people to repeatedly misstate the positions of their opponents.”
Strauss went on to say that
“There will come a time when this current wave of “reform” proves as unsuccessful as past fads – and journalists may look back on their fawning coverage and be very, very sorry that they gave up their objectivity on this subject.”
Some of this makes sense. From what I’ve watched of Education Nation, I have to agree with Strauss, up to a point. And I say this as someone who sides with the thrust of the arguments put forward by the network and the reformers it positioned as heroes – Geoffrey Canada, Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, Arne Duncan.
Andrea Mitchell’s badgering interview of National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel almost made a sympathetic figure of a guy who is so good at making himself and his organization look bad. No need to assist him, Andrea!
And having Joe Scarborough (who isn’t a journalist, just another ex-politician Foxesque talking-head) join the Randi Weingarten witch hunt was unbecoming as well.
Still, there were some great moments, including a few in the clip below, pitting bulldog Michelle Rhee against Weingarten in a no-holds-barred back and forth from which Rhee emerged victorious:
What’s disheartening to me is that people opposed to the current reform agenda are taking Education Nation and Waiting for Superman and concluding that a nefarious corporate plot is afoot to undermine public education.
Whip-smart blogger Sabrina Stevens Shupe, whom I respect and often disagree with, went a bit over the top on the Huffington Post, writing:
“The kind of school reform that gets significant airtime right now – a combination of school closures and/or conversions, merit pay, test-based accountability, executive control of schools, and standardization – is a corporate one, and the corporate interests that created it are also funding the PR campaign to sell it. The Gates, Broad, and Walton Foundations, along with for-profit education organizations and hedge fund managers, have helped fund the creation and promotion of movies like “The Lottery” and “Waiting for ‘Superman,’ ” events like NBCs Education Nation, and “grassroots” activist groups like Stand for Children, Education Reform Now, and Done Waiting. They donate to politicians as well.”
This is becoming a familiar trope from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It’s as if anyone who has ever been motivated at any point in their life by turning a profit is corrupt to the depth of his or her soul. Please. Let’s be adults about this.
Why take legitimate criticisms and inflate them to the point that they become caricatures of themselves? It’s fine to think standardized tests, performance pay, value-added teacher evaluations and other currently popular reforms are wrongheaded. But let’s not wander into conspiracy theory la-la land, please. It might energize your base, but your base is small, so it’s bad politics.
Last week, I posted a video of Colorado state Sen. Mike Johnston giving an impassioned argument for school reform. What I didn’t post was the Q&A. that followed. During the Q&A I asked him about the current backlash against reform and why it has become so strong and at times vicious. His response makes a fitting conclusion to this column.
It’s all about politics, Johnston said. Reformers are winning on the policies and programs front. But if they don’t win on the politics front, “the policies and program go away.” He cited the defeat of Adrian Fenty in the D.C. mayoral primary (and the imminent departure of Rhee) as an example.
Closer to home, Johnston said the 2011 Denver school board races will be pivotal. Three seats are up. Two must be vacated by term-limited reformers Theresa Peña and Bruce Hoyt. If either of those seats are lost, Denver’s ambitious new schools agenda, which is showing real promise, will likely go up in smoke.
And what will take its place? No one knows. People fighting the current reform wave are well-intentioned and passionate. But until they can put forward a specific set of alternative programs and policies that will make a difference for kids, their parroting of the “status quo is unacceptable” line will sound like the platitude it is.
Popularity: 3% [?]
I’m in favor of collaborative reform, a la Brockton High School. Can we get there together, Alan?
I am as far left as possible, socialist to the core, but I understand our 19th century factory- model paradigm has to end. Let’s look at the schools that are getting first-generation students into colleges! Why would anyone shy away from the models that are working? Geoffrey Canada’s suggestions for the teacher’s unions would be a great first step.
I think it’s interesting that you keep flagging me and folks who disagree with you for not presenting alternatives or trying to constructively engage our opponents, yet you ignore us when we do. I’ve been posting constructive solutions every week (Example: http://bit.ly/9DX0Hl). I posted about my view of what a good education looks like as well (http://bit.ly/am8gpW), and I posted about clarifying some of the confusing speech that can interfere with our understanding of valid points of difference and obscures our common ground. (http://bit.ly/d9K47C ; http://bit.ly/9Ti2AZ) Where ya been?
Check your post on HuffPo for my other comments about your dig on my post. FYI, I’m not the only one who thinks you’re off-base in your characterization of my argument.
Sabrina,
Thanks for the links. Obviously you have thought about this deeply and you have proposed both frameworks and some specifics. So I should not lump you in with others (the majority, I’m afraid) who are less thoughtful. I will cross-post the pieces you referred to above to generate more discussion on EdNews’ opinion and commentary blog.
–Alan
I watched the clip and saw several uninformed people (John Legend, really?) making feel-good comments. I didn’t see Michelle Rhee win anything. She’s animated all right, but she’s a self-promoter, trying to portray herself as being all about the kids. That’s an insult to teachers who have been teaching for longer than she’s lived. The jury is still out on whether any significant improvements have happened in DC in the past few years. I’ve seen many conflicting reports. On the topic of Rhee, I have, however, been reading the Washington Post regularly for comments on her, and the sense I get is that Rhee has given more than one reason for firing DC teachers. In this clip, it’s incompetence (measured how?). In other places, it’s been budget cuts (even though she hired 900 new, cheaper teachers and fired older, more expensive teachers), her desire to fund summer school instead of maintain teachers, etc. You catch my drift. Teachers deserve due process. That’s part of what has been earned. In these economic times, more workers deserve due process, not less. A huge driver behind education “reform” is union-busting, all dressed up as progress. The Chicago schools under Arne Duncan now have 15% of their teacher un-unionized, a new record. And Chicago’s “reform” isn’t looking too convincing, either. A big part of the “reforms” are to destroy teachers’ unions, and replace teachers with a low-paid, overworked workforce who work at the whim of people like Rhee, or get burned out and leave. That’s not progress. My favorite statistic is that the most unionized state, Massachusetts, also has the highest academic performance on almost every measure. Therefore, unionization can’t be the culprit stopping good education. Mr. Gottlieb, I’m disappointed you are such a fan of Michael Johnston and Michelle Rhee. They’re both very educated, very well-spoken, but all they offer is top-down solutions, with them being the top. Such solutions to complicated problems will never work without teacher, student, and community buy in.
I’m really hoping Leigh is not a math teacher or tenured professor. “My favorite statistic is that the most unionized state, Massachusetts, also has the highest academic performance on almost every measure. Therefore, unionization can’t be the culprit stopping good education.” This is a classic example of the misuse of statistics. Give me a break. I’m guessing that Massachusetts also has the highest number of historical site designations per square mile. Maybe we should push for more here in Colorado to raise achievement.
I also wonder where Leigh might send her kids if she lived in DC. And what she thinks should be done with DC schools. Is it the lack of funding?
I’m really hoping Mr. Schoales is not a rhetoric teacher or tenured professor, since this is a classic example of rhetorical sleight of hand. Make a statement: “This is a classic example of the misuse of statistics,” provide no proof other than stating an opinion lacking any factual support: “Give me a break,” sidestep the argument by attempting to make the other argument look silly by associating it with an unrelated outlandish analogy, “I’m guessing that Massachusetts also has the highest number of historical site designations per square mile. Maybe we should push for more here in Colorado to raise achievement,” and then ending with a different rhetorical question that subtly puts Ms. Campbell-Hale on the defensive by implying that she hasn’t presented a solution (to a rhetorical question that she was never asked until this posting), “I also wonder where Leigh might send her kids if she lived in DC.”
This is classic Fox “News”/Newt Gingrich misinformation which Mr. Schoales doesn’t need to resort to because he has a record of involvement with some pretty innovative schools. But if he’s against unions he needs to explain why, and if he disagrees with Ms. Campbell-Hale he needs to explain why. I happen to agree with Ms. Campbell-Hale that Michelle Rhee is an arrogant self-promoter who deserved her comeuppance by the D.C. voters, and I worked in Chicago so I’ve read the evidence in the “Chicago Reader” that Renaissance 2010 was basically failure. I’m genuinely curious what Mr. Schoales has to say since he has a record of school innovation, unlike the Fox News/Independence Institute types, but it’s disappointing that he’s acting like them.
No not against unions, but I am against the way teacher unions are treating teachers like interchangeable widgets as if they were factory workers. I’m all about supporting teachers to be treated like real professionals with the pay and accountability that goes along with being a professional.
I’m a huge fan of SEIU and was member of NEA (6 yrs) before I realized that they were more interested treating us all the same and fighting for more benefits rather than fighting for what was best for kids.
I’m also tired of hearing from people (often teacher union leaders) that we shouldn’t get rid of some teachers or close a school when they would never send their own kids to a school with such dismal achievement records.
I wonder how many people on this blog would honestly send their kid to Adams City, Central, North, or West? Not many given the fact that these schools are preparing fewer than 5% for college.
For the record, Mr. Schoales, our two children graduated from Denver Public Schools. One graduated from North. The problems at North are decades old and the district has been aware of them, or should have been. The so-called “redesign” of North was a failure that neither Michael Bennet nor Tom Boasberg have ever acknowledged. Teachers were spectators and victims in the process as were students. So, if North isn’t currently preparing students for college, it isn’t because of the evil, obstinate teachers’ union. That particular fiasco was designed and executed by Bennet and the board of education. I keep asking of your and other “reformers” just what do you mean by “reform?” More testing? Authoritarianism? Based on published accounts, that appears to be the agenda. For decades, teachers unions and other organizations and distinguished individuals have advocated for smaller class sizes, smaller schools, longer school days and years, more technology and, most important, highly qualified teachers. Testing, however, is of limited use in assessing student achievement. As a high school teacher, I focused more upon teaching research skills. Research skills are much more marketable than test taking skills. Remember, a test score is only a snap shot.
Mr. Schoales,
I think the larger point you’re touching upon is that teachers unions are currently organized around an industrial model. The shape of the American school system was basically created in the early part of last century and hasn’t evolved much since then. For the most part it’s an autocratic factory model (there are even bells signaling when its time to start and stop working…) in which the central office controls the school which controls the teacher. In all large urban districts there’s not much trust between the central office and the schools – the central office thinks the teachers are idiots and they need to micromanage them and the teachers think the central office is full of bureaucratic idiots who don’t treat them as professionals because they’re removed from the reality of the classroom. Teachers are organized like factory workers, not professionals, and consequently there is always a tension between whether they should be considered professionals or treated like “like interchangeable widgets as if they were factory workers.” And the teacher’s unions are in a Catch-22 situation. Historically until the 1960′s teachers were treated like crap, there’s no other way to describe it. During the 60′s the unions essentially reached an accomodation with the school districts – “We’ll relinquish our autonomy and control over the school system/curriculum (which we’ve never had anyway), and in return you will pay us much better and grant us due process” and that Faustian bargain has essentially been in place ever since. I highly doubt that Randi Weingarden enjoys going out in public to protect incompetent teachers since I’m sure she’s aware that it makes her union look like it is composed of a bunch of idiots. Survey after survey indicates that teachers would love to be rid of incompetent co-workers because they understand it contributes to the societal belief that “those who can do, those who can’t teach.” But Randi Weingarden doesn’t really have a choice considering the way unions are still organized. If she doesn’t protect her teachers, even the incompetent ones, then she is relinquishing the union’s limited power and then freeing the central office to be able to fire any teacher that pisses off a Principal at will. This is historical reality and it happens all the time in education – unions have some power but it’s basically triage. There was a recent “Westword” article on Andrea Meridia that mentioned Sabrina Stevens Shupe and how she was non-renewed – reading between the lines she was fired because it was a crappy Principal who resented having her authority questioned by a new idealistic innovative teacher. If you’ve been in education long enough you understand the politics, it’s sure as hell happened to me and many teachers I know, but if you’re Michael Johnston who comes from a privileged background and has always been in charge at his schools then you don’t get that. I’m sure he’s well intentioned and ran excellent schools but judging by his public comments he is highly naive about what life is like for educators in highly bureaucratic urban school districts that are very different from his own experience. As is Arne Duncan – he always says the right thing, by all accounts is very personable, but when Mayor Daley told him to jump he jumped. Reading between the lines, Rob Stein quit as Principal at Manual High School in digust at being hamstrung by the central office, but at least he understands what dealing the system is like. Anyway the point of unions is not to sabotage education reform but to protect educators against egregious abuses so they can focus their energies on helping children. And unions are locked in a losing battle on that front until they free themselves from their symbiotic relationship with the central office, a relationship that is based upon an industrial era contract.
So what’s the solution – Unions that have evolved for the 21st century. SEIU is probably the best example of a union that has evolved. I agree with you about the NEA – historically the NEA is about 25 years behind the times, the AFT tends to be much more innovative, but it’s also a lot more limited in scope. I would check out the new leadership of the Chicago Teacher’s Union – once you get past the media cliches they are doing a lot of innovative things.
I think the ultimate solution is that unions need to evolve and organize teachers as professionals, like they do in Finland or Japan, two of the highest performing educational systems in the world. Ideally in the U.S. a third union would evolve that will unionize charter schools – the NEA is too conservative and I don’t think the AFT will be able to pull it off. And this new union will organize teachers as professionals – the contracts will be school based, basically cover due process, and then the school, working in collaboration as professionals, will hash out the details of what the school should look like. It’s a lot more collaborative, it’s a lot more democratic, it’s a lot more professional, and there will be a lot more buy-in from everyone because they are involved vs. some abstract central contract detailing how many bathroom breaks an employee can receive… This model frees unions from their dependence/accomodation on the central bureaucracies and hopefully will starve those inefficient worthless money sucking bureaucracies to death while empowering local control of schools. I would recommend reading “United Mind Workers: Unions and Teaching in the Knowledge Society” or “Taking Care of Quality: How Teachers and Unions Can Revitalize Schools” by Charles Taylor Kerchner. There are plenty of innovative ideas out there about how to improve schools coming from educators, self-styled education “reformers” who claim otherwise are either ignorant, oblivious, or lying. Blunt but true.
One last point. I have a hunch that I agree with you about 99.9% about what needs to be done to improve schools but from what I’ve read I utterly detest Democrats For Education Reform, and I should be the number one supporter of them. I read the mission statement and it looks great, I read them in the Denver Post and they’re always bashing unions. I don’t know if the quotes are being taken out of context or not but there’s a huge difference between “I’m a big fan of unions but they need to evolve,” which I believe is your stance, vs. “Unions hate children and their sole purpose is to protect incompetent teachers” ala Michell Rhee/”Waiting For Superman.” The message I always get from Democrats For Education Reform is that “Unions hate children and their sole purpose is to protect incompetent teachers” and that’s the message that is conveyed via the media, and that’s a message the G.O.P. takes and runs with. And historically the G.O.P. has hated unions and has been very successful since the 1970′s in destroying them, and while Democrats For Education Reform may be well-intentioned they are incredibly naive if they don’t understand how their actions are helping the G.O.P. to continue to undermine public trust in unions. Unions are certainly not perfect but throughout American history they have been arguably the strongest voice for democracy, equality of opportunity, civil rights – essentially progress in American life. They’re sure as hell a lot better than Douglas Bruce, the Independence Institute, or the current Texas School Board. Union membership has been declining since the 1970′s, wages for the American worker haven’t risen since the 70′s, that’s not a coincidence, and I can quote you twenty other statistics of a similar nature. The conservative activist David Frum once noted that Republicans fear their base while Democrats despise theirs and as a teacher in a union I certainly feel despised by Obama/Arne Duncan/Democrats For Education Reform. That may not be the intention but it is the reality, and it also explains why Democrats have essentially lost much of the union vote since Ronald Reagan. You can’t work to professionalize and empower teachers while at the same time supporting an autocrat like Michelle Rhee who is on the record dismissing collaboration with teachers and obviously despises unions, or at least comes off in the media that way. It’s two separate visions of what education should be in America.
If I have done my homework correctly, Ms. Campbell-Hale is a very successful history teacher, and from what i can tell from her students, they find her classes challenging, rigorous and for the most part worthwhile. (And a bit tough) I suspect most who read these blogs would find that at least “interesting.”
She also is very engaged in the experiential national History Day competition which would mean she puts in long, long extra hours, beyond her teaching duties. I know this to be true because my theater major daughter who attends the same Denver School of the Arts as Mr. Schoales’s daughter also represented DSA in the local, regional and national history day presentation.
Thank you for your work as an educator and the extra hours you put in. i have very little experience with unions beyond as a teen with a summer job that had me around the teamsters just after Mr. Hoffa went missing and my father was in management with a trucking companies his entire working life. I do not think that there is any conspiracy to dissolve the teacher’s union, yet I do not think that belief, or many of my others make any difference in providing the kind of education i suspect you provide. As for educators, lots of time spent with them. More so with the teens that attend the schools.
Well the good news is that we now have some fairly good data and experience after 20 years of trying to reform schools like North on what not and to do in order for it to work. And Yes it is really difficult. There are very few examples of success anywhere.
Ed, I’m curious what would you do with North? How much should it cost? and what should we expect under what timeline?