"...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.
No comments:
Post a Comment