Why I Feel Like I'm Talking To Myself

I am a bit nutty, I admit, but I don't generally talk to myself. However, when I talk about education, I feel like I might as well be talking into a strong wind. Nothing I say or think really makes it into any of the education policy decisions made in this country. And all of my observations about NYC schools takes reporters at the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets eons to discover. 


Let's take Exhibit A:


"Triumph Fades On Racial Gap in New York City Schools"



This article reports that Bloomberg and Klein have finally realized that the achievement gap between racial groups is not diminishing, despite the fact that both of these men have been saying that it has for the past five years. Unfortunately, the test that they were basing all this on was, well, too easy. 


"But the test scores that the mayor and the chancellor chose to highlight were the state standardized tests, and they built their entire system around it, with schools’ A-through-F grades, teachers’ bonuses and now tenure decisions dependent on how well their students performed on the tests."


Now, here is my problem. I could have told Bloomberg and Klein this a few years ago. Most teachers probably could have. Those of us in the classroom, on the proverbial "frontlines", see that the achievement gap is bigger than just test scores. If you really want to measure the gap between blacks and Latinos and other groups, you have to look at everything from reading levels to the academic proficiency with which students enter the system. While test scores from 2004-2009 painted a rosy picture for government officials, showing a steady leveling of scores, in the classroom, the situation remained dire with black and Latino students continuing to face huge challenges and educational stumbling blocks. 


For the reporter who wrote this story, I'd like to make a suggestion. Perhaps you could look into the fact that the government "based their entire system" around testing. This is a huge story. There is something wrong when teachers, students, and schools are all evaluated based on ONE TEST in math and ELA. Most teachers have known for years that this system is ludicrous and would ultimately fail. If a teacher used one data point to determine students' grades for an entire year, the rest of us in the profession would balk. We would laugh. We would perhaps flog him or her.  


But of course, no one asked us. 


I would really like to see a story written in the New York Times by a real, breathing, honest-to-God teacher. What a novelty. A teacher, an educator, a person who steps into a school every day, writing about education for the general public. Then maybe I'd feel less like a mumbling fool talking to herself on the street. 

Response to NYTimes Editorial - "The Fight Over Education in Washington"

On Saturday July 31, the Times editorial board continued to miss the point about education reform when it continued to blindly praise President Obama's edcuation plan and villainize those actually inside the classrooms.

"...teachers unions and other forces of the status quo are already trying to subvert the measure [the Elementary and Secondary Education Act] by discrediting President Obama's signature education initiative, the Race to the Top, which requires the states to make reforms in exchange for federal grants."


Let's look at some of the language the editors use to distort the issue:

• "teachers unions" = When I see or hear this phrase I can't help but believe that this is a euphemism for teachers in general, most likely along with principals and anyone else who actually works in school buildings. My colleagues know that I am certainly not the biggest fan of our teacher union and believe that the union itself has a lot of reform to do. But when the media uses the phrase "teachers unions" the public will equate that with teachers.
• "...and other forces of the status quo..." = Yes, teachers don't want anything to change in education. Everything is going just fine. Please. By "status quo" what you really mean is opposition to Race to the Top. Teachers and real leaders of education reform have been pushing against the "status quo" forever. And by the way, can you please explain how Race to the Top is different from No Child Left Behind? How is it really different? And, also, what "other forces" are you talking about?
• "...subvert the measure by discrediting President Obama's signature initiative..." = Yes, this is exactly what those of us who are on the front lines and have the real experience and real data are trying to do. We support Obama. He's just wrong about this. Or doesn't know enough.
• "reforms" = Perhaps this is the most important point. When the New York Times or President Obama's team use this word it assumes that "reforms" (which are really just "changes") are automatically good, an improvement upon what currently exists. Again, this is political rhetoric designed to make Obama's plan seem obvious and those opposed seem self-interested and out of touch. We ALL want reform. Just not this kind (if it really is anything more than a catchy renaming and tweaking of NCLB).

The editorial goes on to say, "The attacks picked up in earnest this week, when a coalition of civil rights groups ... signed onto a statement that attacked not just Race to the Top, but the very idea of using competitive grants to spur reform... President Obama came out swinging on Thursday... He seemed particularly incensed by the baseless claim that Race to the Top had shortchanged minority children."

Baseless claim? Really? What stake, exactly do civil rights groups have in opposing Race to the Top? Why would these groups gather and spend money, effort, and time to rail against Obama's precious "signature initiative"? Perhaps it's because the claim is not in fact baseless but rooted in common sense and data that politicians and media outlets like the Times are not interested in. The editorial quotes Obama's defense.

"He said the charge that it 'isn't targeted at those young people most in need is absolutely false because lifting up quality for all our children--black, white, Hispanic--that is the central premise of Race to the Top. And you can't win one of these grants unless you've got a plan to deal with those schools that are failing and those young people who aren't doing well.'"

As I've argued here before, by definition Race to the Top means that many states, districts, schools, and children will be LEFT BEHIND because they do not "win one of these grants". And even if all schools did everything to win these grants (despite the fact that many educators KNOW that some of the conditions that need to be met will NOT improve schools) all of them cannot win money.

We cannot have an honest debate or even discussion about improving schooling in America if we scramble our plans in empty political rhetoric and squash opposing voices by mislabeling them and misrepresenting their ideas.