Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Grannan: In The Village, no one can hear you scream

Guest post by Caroline Grannan

People like me – regular parents with regular kids in regular schools, along with many other non-headline names -- are having trouble fathoming how the Obama administration could so eagerly embrace the Bush administration’s education policies and push them forward. Obama’s policies even add more emphasis on high-stakes testing, on blaming teachers, and on exalting privatization.

The forces that created and promote those policies pointedly fail to consult with or listen to educators, parents, or anyone else who spends time in actual classrooms with real live kids.

Obama’s wrongheaded tack was already dismaying. But it was even more astonishing when Arne Duncan, Obama’s education secretary, told the New York Times that he had encountered no opposition to the administration’s education policy. “Zero,” Duncan added, for emphasis.

“Hey Arne! Over here!” responded blogger Mike Klonsky.

Here on Planet Earth, dissenting voices have been raising an outcry in every way we can think of. We have a new spokesperson in Diane Ravitch, former Bush administration education official and onetime supporter of the Bush/Obama policies who took a hard look, saw those policies not just failing but doing harm, and now speaks out publicly to oppose them. Ravitch (an NYU education historian and author of “The Death and Life of the Great American School System”) has personally met with Duncan to discuss all this.

How is he not hearing? How is he unaware of the critics? How is none of this getting through to Obama?

“It’s The Village,” my 19-year-old son, a poli-sci wonk, explains patiently. The Village, he tells me, is a concept widely referred to by bloggers and other commentators to define the members and the mindset of the Washington establishment – the insiders who listen only to themselves. As one blogger puts it, “[T]he term ‘Villagers’ denotes a kind of small-minded refusal to think outside an ‘acceptable’ center-right consensus … [T]he ‘Villagers’ include, in part, Democratic elected officials and consultants who insist that their party can’t succeed unless they ally their party with that center-right consensus; think-tankers who churn out position papers designed to prop up this elite consensus view; and elite pundits.” That quote comes from Greg Sargent’s blog The Plum Line, which, ironically for a commentary critical of The Village, is carried on washingtonpost.com.

Since my son – who reads a wide variety of political thought – introduced me to the term, I asked him to write a further explanation for me. Here’s his elaboration: “The foundation of The Village is ethos rather than logos, trust in who's saying something rather than what they're actually saying. To gain The Village's trust, one must submit to The Village consensus on an array of issues. Ideas that take their place in The Village consensus don't come from some sort of rational thought process; like head coverings and prayer shawls in Anatevka, where they come from is unclear. But once the consensus is formed, the primary means a Villager uses to judge any idea is how closely the person or people articulating the idea adheres to the overall Village mindset.”

Washington Post fixture Sally Quinn is credited with defining the concept in a long, earnest 1998 essay explaining why the Monica Lewinsky scandal left the Washington insider community scandalized, outraged, aghast and betrayed -- even though the rest of the country, while fleetingly grossed out, otherwise just didn’t much care. A quote from Quinn’s piece: “ ‘We have our own set of village rules,’ says David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, who worked for both the Reagan and Clinton White House.” Quinn, portraying The Village as a nurturing extended circle with deeply shared values, defined it as both “Washington insiders” and “the Washington Establishment.”

When I went looking for more discussion of The Village, I found lots of material, mostly not related to education issues. The blog Down with Tyranny referred aptly to the “seemingly instinctive collusion between the Village's permanently right-of-center political establishment and its faithful media collaborators.” Down with Tyranny was writing about The Village’s horror when Cheney aide Scooter Libby was indicted in connection with the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.

But blogger Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler blames The Village mentality for the parroting of anti-public-education and anti-teacher scripts by media insiders such Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, a serial public-school basher. Somerby groused: “[C]ould we offer a thought about Cohen and public education? Cohen knows nothing about vouchers, and nothing about charters. He has no idea what goes on in low-income schools, or why low-income kids fail to prosper. He doesn’t have the slightest idea how we could improve our schools. But so what? He has memorized one famous scripted line, the line his colleagues all know to recite. (Democrats won’t stand up to the [teachers’] unions!) Within his Village, this counts as erudition.”

And The Village mindset explains Newsweek’s now-notorious cover story mindlessly blaming teachers for the challenges of public education; the oblivion of liberals like the late, iconic Teddy Kennedy and California Rep. George Miller (co-sponsors of the bill known as No Child Left Behind) to the real-life issues facing schools and teachers – and Arne Duncan and Barack Obama’s intractable deafness.

As blogger Skippy the Bush Kangaroo observed: “In the Village, you can be wrong about everything, but once you're in, you're in for life.”

28 comments:

Ender said...

What about those parents that aren't "regular", or those kids that aren't "regular", or those schools that aren't "regular". I just see that as being quite offensive. In case you aren't aware that those kids exist I must just say, "Welcome to Holland" (look it up if you don't understand the reference, most people wouldn't).

melody said...

Thank you! I learned something. It really is amazing how all their scripts intersect.

nikto said...

Ender,

Offensive?
You are delusional, or doing some serious projection.

Where you could find offense in Ms. Grannan's thoughtful writing is puzzling to me.

I sense ulterior motives on you part, frankly.

What's your stake in the game...really?
(A Palinesque, wink wink)

Also, You don't generally explain yourself well, and your post is just another tantalizingly vague eye-roller from you.
Your ommission made for a pretty vapid statement in truth.

Please feel free to tell any of us uninformed people the stunning truth about Holland which will drive your point home beyond any
possible opposition.

I assume there IS something
to tell.

But then again, perhaps the lingering mystery would be preferable to another bizarre line of incomplete "reasoning" served on a platter of your smug cynicism?

Ender said...

Welcome to Holland is a pretty famous essay that I would assume all teachers should read. You mean to tell me you have time to read all of Ravich's book but not famous articles about special needs kids? You have read Luke Jackson's book Freaks Geeks and Asperger's right? That should be required reading but I highly doubt it is. Sad realy.

As for the whole smug thing, not really, I just know what kids like me go through on a daily basis. The bullying, the ignoring, the being made to feel like you are bad. I just read about Tyler Long, another bullycide victim , another person killed by the public school system. When does it end? When do we recongize the need for more OPTIONS, more outs, more whatever. I don't care if it involves going to private school or whatever, anything is better then the hell that some of us are made to go through. Course I know you will probably disagree.

nikto said...

Ender,
No one disagrees that more options in Education are a good thing.

There are many kinds of children out there, with many different ways of learning, and many different kinds of difficulties.
That's why Education is expensive--It involves not just teaching the bright, positive, well-adjusted kids (like the ones cherry-picked by charters), but teaching the troubled ones as well.
That's where schooling gets messy and expensive.
And sometimes even fails.

Personally, I haven't felt America has cared enough to really pay adequately for educational *programs* in decades----Adequately enough to give the kinds of options that nearly every kid needs, from the gifted, to the rough & tough, to the gentle souls and the fragile weirdos that make up a good part of our school populations.

So much money spent has been in recent years on staff developments and pressure on faculties, instead of funding for new PROGRAMS to serve more types of kids.

They should be issuing the kinds of challenges real teachers want to hear:

"Here's funding & directives for new programs to reach more kids-- Create them!"

Instead we get:

"get those test scores up up UP. And here's a new way using cooperative learning to get higher test scores; you have the next 3 days to work on... etc etc"

Mucho tax dollar$ are wasted on this crap year after year.

At least somebody's Ed Consulting Firm is doing well.

Testing-driven curriculums are very rote and robotic.
Very left-brain and 1-dimensional.

The curriculum in many charters is also often rote, programmed and designed for ease of turnover-of-staff and low costs.

But who knows--Maybe that's an improvement on what you or many other kids had.

I do understand if some kids want to "escape" to the relative safety of a cherry-picked charter, since Public School discipline is so compromised nowadays. And that is a whole other area where teachers' voices are habitually ignored now.

nikto said...

Ender,
No one disagrees that more options in Education are a good thing.

There are many kinds of children out there, with many different ways of learning, and many different kinds of difficulties.
That's why Education is expensive--It involves Not just teaching the bright, positive, well-adjusted kids (like the ones cherry-picked by charters), but teaching the troubled ones as well.
That's where schooling gets messy and expensive.

Personally, I haven't felt America has cared enough to really pay adequately for educational programs in decades----Adequately enough to give the kinds of options that nearly every kid needs, from the gifted, to the rough & tough, to the gentle souls and the fragile weirdos that make up a good part of our school populations.

So much money spent has been in recent years on staff developments and pressure on faculties, instead of funding for new PROGRAMS to serve more types of kids.

They should be issuing the kinds of challenges real teachers want to hear:

"Here's funding & directives for new programs to reach more kids, create them!"

Instead we get:

"get those test scores up up UP. And here's a new way using cooperative learning to get higher test scores; you have the next 3 days to work on...etc etc..."

Mucho tax dollar$ are wasted on this crap year after year.

At least somebody's Ed Consulting Firm is doing well.

Testing-driven curriculums are very rote and robotic.
Very left-brain and 1-dimensional.

The curriculum in many charters is also often rote, programmed and designed for ease of turnover-of-staff and low costs.

But who knows--Maybe that's an improvement on what you or many other kids had.

I understand if some kids want to "escape" to the relative safety of a cherry-picked charter, since Public School discipline is so compromised nowadays. And that is a whole other factor.

nikto said...

Ender,
No one disagrees that more options in Education are a good thing.

There are many kinds of children out there, with many different ways of learning, and many different kinds of difficulties.
That's why Education is expensive--It involves Not just teaching the bright, positive, well-adjusted kids (like the ones cherry-picked by charters), but teaching the troubled ones as well.
That's where schooling gets messy and expensive.

Personally, I haven't felt America has cared enough to really pay adequately for educational programs in decades----Adequately enough to give the kinds of options that nearly every kid needs, from the gifted, to the rough & tough, to the gentle souls and the fragile weirdos that make up a good part of our school populations.

So much money spent has been in recent years on staff developments and pressure on faculties, instead of funding for new PROGRAMS to serve more types of kids.

They should be issuing the kinds of challenges real teachers want to hear:

"Here's funding & directives for new programs to reach more kids, create them!"

Instead we get:

"get those test scores up up UP. And here's a new way using cooperative learning to get higher test scores; you have the next 3 days to work on...etc etc..."

Mucho tax dollar$ are wasted on this crap year after year.

At least somebody's Ed Consulting Firm is doing well.

Testing-driven curriculums are very rote and robotic.
Very left-brain and 1-dimensional.

The curriculum in many charters is also often rote, programmed and designed for ease of turnover-of-staff and low costs.

But who knows--Maybe that's an improvement on what you or many other kids had.

I understand if some kids want to "escape" to the relative safety of a cherry-picked charter, since Public School discipline is so compromised nowadays. And that is a whole other factor.

nikto said...

...(continued)


Testing-driven curriculums are very rote and robotic.
Very left-brain and 1-dimensional.

The curriculum in many charters is also often rote, programmed and designed for ease of turnover-of-staff and low costs.

But who knows--Maybe that's an improvement on what you or many other kids had.

I understand if some kids want to "escape" to the relative safety of a cherry-picked charter, since Public School discipline is so compromised nowadays. And that is a whole other factor.

nikto said...

Ender,
No one disagrees that more options in Education are a good thing.

There are many kinds of children out there, with many different ways of learning, and many different kinds of difficulties.
That's why Education is expensive--It involves Not just teaching the bright, positive, well-adjusted kids (like the ones cherry-picked by charters), but teaching the troubled ones as well.
That's where schooling gets messy and expensive.

Personally, I haven't felt America has cared enough to really pay adequately for educational programs in decades----Adequately enough to give the kinds of options that nearly every kid needs, from the gifted, to the rough & tough, to the gentle souls and the fragile weirdos that make up a good part of our school populations.

So much money spent has been in recent years on staff developments and pressure on faculties, instead of funding for new PROGRAMS to serve more types of kids.

They should be issuing the kinds of challenges real teachers want to hear:

"Here's funding & directives for new programs to reach more kids, create them!"

Instead we get:

"get those test scores up up UP. And here's a new way using cooperative learning to get higher test scores; you have the next 3 days to work on...etc etc..."

Mucho tax dollar$ are wasted on this crap year after year.

At least somebody's Ed Consulting Firm is doing well.

...

Ender said...

But teachers unions do fight alternative placements. For example a great many parents use virtual charter schools to help their kid that are being bullied and abused in public schools. In fact when you really think about it thats probably a great deal of the reason why someone would go to a place like that where the cirriculum is chosen for them. Teachers unions will fight such schools to the ends of the earth because one teacher there can teach A LOT more kids and it takes money directly from the public school. Meaning less need for teachers in the whole there.

There are also some voucher programs that offer more money for special needs kids, or are only offered for special needs kids (which it typically costs more the educate them). Teachers unions are against that too, for much the same reason. While there will be just as many teachers, a lot of the teachers won't be unionized, and who cares about nonunionized teachers?

I get that NCLB is hurting you, but lets not even pretend things were great before NCLB. I was primarily educated in the 90s, most of my education was spend bored in the back of the classroom hearing things I had learned 2-3 or more years ago. Not exactly my idea of a good time.

Beyond that I had a great many teachers that I doubt could have taught me what I was ready to learn. Lets face it, other then possibly an introductory course, most teachers have no training to deal with gifted kids, disabled kids, ESL kids, or any other exceptional children. They are taught how to teach the average everyday kid, and that is it. They might know a few differentiation strategies, but not really that much there.

Imagine being in a classroom where the teacher has no clue how you learn, and no real clue how to reach you. You have an individual aide with you, but the extent of her special needs knowledge is slim to none so they don't teach you that well either. So nothing is designed to reach you. The teacher can't really do that much to reach you either because she has 20 other kids in the classroom that all need to be taught differently. So she teaches to the middle (hitting maybe 8 of the 21 kids perfectly, and another 11 decently) and maybe spends 3 minutes a day "trying" to teach you, except the middle never hits you. That doesn't seem like a very ideal environment to me. But thats what neighborhood schools are all about. Sounds like an outdated model to me. But lets say they told you to start teaching Montessori style... would you have a clue what to do? Probably not.

Ender said...

But teachers unions do fight alternative placements. For example a great many parents use virtual charter schools to help their kid that are being bullied and abused in public schools. In fact when you really think about it thats probably a great deal of the reason why someone would go to a place like that where the cirriculum is chosen for them. Teachers unions will fight such schools to the ends of the earth because one teacher there can teach A LOT more kids and it takes money directly from the public school. Meaning less need for teachers in the whole there.

There are also some voucher programs that offer more money for special needs kids, or are only offered for special needs kids (which it typically costs more the educate them). Teachers unions are against that too, for much the same reason. While there will be just as many teachers, a lot of the teachers won't be unionized, and who cares about nonunionized teachers?

I get that NCLB is hurting you, but lets not even pretend things were great before NCLB. I was primarily educated in the 90s, most of my education was spend bored in the back of the classroom hearing things I had learned 2-3 or more years ago. Not exactly my idea of a good time.

Beyond that I had a great many teachers that I doubt could have taught me what I was ready to learn. Lets face it, other then possibly an introductory course, most teachers have no training to deal with gifted kids, disabled kids, ESL kids, or any other exceptional children. They are taught how to teach the average everyday kid, and that is it. They might know a few differentiation strategies, but not really that much there.

Imagine being in a classroom where the teacher has no clue how you learn, and no real clue how to reach you. You have an individual aide with you, but the extent of her special needs knowledge is slim to none so they don't teach you that well either. So nothing is designed to reach you. The teacher can't really do that much to reach you either because she has 20 other kids in the classroom that all need to be taught differently. So she teaches to the middle (hitting maybe 8 of the 21 kids perfectly, and another 11 decently) and maybe spends 3 minutes a day "trying" to teach you, except the middle never hits you. That doesn't seem like a very ideal environment to me. But thats what neighborhood schools are all about. Sounds like an outdated model to me. But lets say they told you to start teaching Montessori style... would you have a clue what to do? Probably not.

nikto said...

Many of your arguments are very "80s", and long-discredited by the disclosures about the charter movement, which is all about profit$ and only uses "reform" concepts to suck in the gullible for their support (until the gullible learn more, which sometimes does happen--Please read this blog, along with Schoolsmatter and Susan Ohanian, for details on this.

Sorry, but it is slam-dunk:
The charter movement is cynical in
its design, but manages to pull in supporters from the public and school personnel who are sincere, which helps create an enabling veneer of "smiley" reality.

Again and again, regular, non-wealthy, NON-INVESTOR families
who were sold a glittering bill of good on charters and gave their support, become disillusioned by the distant "financial-portfolio style" of charter school management
which leaves some school policies and actions completely opaque and rigid to the local parents who wonder why their child was kicked-out, or treated in some unexpected and not wholly positive way by the school.

How do you know that wouldn't have happened to you?

What makes you think your experience at a charter would be so wonderful in comparison to most other schools?

And why do you think re-arranging public schools for profit would make them better able to educate students with special needs?

The siphoning of profit$ by charter managements from the tax dollars allocated to schools will drain funds from the classroom.

Duh.

Kind of like saying water
flows downhill.

But I suppose you may also think that cutting taxes raises revenues whenever it is done--don't try to find me proof--You can't do it without extremely fudged numbers.
Been there before.

I often find those types of thinking are linked (tax cut illogic and the joys of vouchers and charters, etc).


I suspect the same "philosophy" (i.e.failed cognition) is at work
in way too many vulnerable minds.

Bitterness about their schooling
influences many peoples' feelings about school and school policies.

I'm sorry you had a bad school experience that stifled you instead of helping you feel free to safely grow.

I'd resent that, too.

But I see a good 30%-50% of students in my inner-city RIGHT NOW who are not being served by testing or test scores. Charters wouldn't keep many of these students, do to behavior.

Some of the better students will choose charters--And they will be able to escape antagonism from the "mean & tough" kids who are usually kicked out of charters.

NOBODY seems to know how to effectively teach, or even reach,
the toughest group of kids (a huge percentage of some inner-city classrooms).

But heck, we could remedy that with a whole new discipline policy in our existing public schools.
Current ineffective policy (so-called "Progressive Discipline"--universally disliked by teachers) seems locked-in-place for now, which just helps charter school arguments against public schools (a little cui bono here--Possibly intentional & from the top?)

How can we change public schools discipline policies so as to disempower the disruptive, bullying kids (they are very often the same)?

THAT is one of the questions
we should be asking about public schools, for certain.

I do not believe the Teachers Union is the major obstacle in this area.

But SOME obstacle keeps the dysfunctional policy in place.

It's not that public schooling doesn't have problems, but I find the assumption that for-profit schools automatically do better, naive.

Perhaps a NON-PROFIT CHARTER would be the answer--Run by a board of teachers and parents with no profit-seeking businesspeople or career adminstrators in sight(?)

I don't have a problem with charters per se, just the PROFIT part of it & corporate involvement at a management level.

NON-profit public school charters with transparent management could be a very good investment of tax dollars.

Perhaps we could agree on that?

nikto said...

Many of your arguments are very "80s", and long-discredited by the disclosures about the charter movement, which is all about profit$ and only uses "reform" concepts to suck in the gullible for their support (until the gullible learn more, which sometimes does happen--Please read this blog, along with Schoolsmatter and Susan Ohanian, for details on this.

Sorry, but it is slam-dunk:
The charter movement is cynical in
its design, but manages to pull in supporters from the public and school personnel who are sincere, which helps create an enabling veneer of "smiley" reality.

Again and again, regular, non-wealthy, NON-INVESTOR families
who were sold a glittering bill of good on charters and gave their support, become disillusioned by the distant "financial-portfolio style" of charter school management
which leaves some school policies and actions completely opaque and rigid to the local parents who wonder why their child was kicked-out, or treated in some unexpected and not wholly positive way by the school.

How do you know that wouldn't have happened to you?

What makes you think your experience at a charter would be so wonderful in comparison to most other schools?

And why do you think re-arranging public schools for profit would make them better able to educate students with special needs?

The siphoning of profit$ by charter managements from the tax dollars allocated to schools will drain funds from the classroom.

Duh.

Kind of like saying water
flows downhill.

But I suppose you may also think that cutting taxes raises revenues whenever it is done--don't try to find me proof--You can't do it without extremely fudged numbers.
Been there before.

I often find those types of thinking are linked (tax cut illogic and the joys of vouchers and charters, etc).


I suspect the same "philosophy" (i.e.failed cognition) is at work
in way too many vulnerable minds.

Bitterness about their schooling
influences many peoples' feelings about school and school policies.

(cont)...

nikto said...

Many of your arguments are very "80s", and long-discredited by the disclosures about the charter movement, which is all about profit$ and only uses "reform" concepts to suck in the gullible for their support (until the gullible learn more, which sometimes does happen--Please read this blog, along with Schoolsmatter and Susan Ohanian, for details on this.

Sorry, but it is slam-dunk:
The charter movement is cynical in
its design, but manages to pull in supporters from the public and school personnel who are sincere, which helps create an enabling veneer of "smiley" reality.

Again and again, regular, non-wealthy, NON-INVESTOR families
who were sold a glittering bill of good on charters and gave their support, become disillusioned by the distant "financial-portfolio style" of charter school management
which leaves some school policies and actions completely opaque and rigid to the local parents who wonder why their child was kicked-out, or treated in some unexpected and not wholly positive way by the school.

How do you know that wouldn't have happened to you?

(cont)...

nikto said...

(cont...)

What makes you think your experience at a charter would be so wonderful in comparison to most other schools?

And why do you think re-arranging public schools for profit would make them better able to educate students with special needs?

The siphoning of profit$ by charter managements from the tax dollars allocated to schools will drain funds from the classroom.

Duh.

Kind of like saying water
flows downhill.

But I suppose you may also think that cutting taxes raises revenues whenever it is done--don't try to find me proof--You can't do it without extremely fudged numbers.
Been there before.

I often find those types of thinking are linked (tax cut illogic and the joys of vouchers and charters, etc).


I suspect the same "philosophy" (i.e.failed cognition) is at work
in way too many vulnerable minds.

Bitterness about their schooling
influences many peoples' feelings about school and school policies.

I'm sorry you had a bad school experience that stifled you instead of helping you feel free to safely grow.

I'd resent that, too.

But I see a good 30%-50% of students in my inner-city RIGHT NOW who are not being served by testing or test scores. Charters wouldn't keep many of these students, do to behavior.

Some of the better students will choose charters--And they will be able to escape antagonism from the "mean & tough" kids who are usually kicked out of charters.

(cont...)

nikto said...

(cont...)

It seems to me, the big issue here is meeting individual needs--That is perhaps educations' biggest challenge.

Have public schools been
up to that challenge ?
Certainly not recently, since conformity was reinforced by test-score mania.


We need LESS conformity, that
is agreed.
But that change has little to do with corporatizing and profitizing education

NOBODY seems to know how to effectively teach, or even reach,
the toughest group of kids (a huge percentage of some inner-city classrooms).

But heck, we could remedy that with a whole new discipline policy in our existing public schools.
Current ineffective policy (so-called "Progressive Discipline"--universally disliked by teachers) seems locked-in-place for now, which just helps charter school arguments against public schools (a little cui bono here--Possibly intentional & from the top?)

How can we change public schools discipline policies so as to disempower the disruptive, bullying kids (they are very often the same)?

THAT is one of the questions
we should be asking about public schools, for certain.

I do not believe the Teachers Union is the major obstacle in this area.

But SOME obstacle keeps the dysfunctional policy in place.

It's not that public schooling doesn't have problems, but I find the assumption that for-profit schools automatically do better, naive.

Perhaps a NON-PROFIT CHARTER would be the answer--Run by a board of teachers and parents with no profit-seeking businesspeople or career adminstrators in sight(?)

I don't have a problem with charters per se, just the PROFIT part of it & corporate involvement at a management level.

NON-profit public school charters with transparent management could be a very good investment of tax dollars.

Perhaps we could agree on that?

nikto said...

(cont...)

NOBODY seems to know how to effectively teach, or even reach,
the toughest group of kids (a huge percentage of some inner-city classrooms).

But heck, we could remedy that with a whole new discipline policy in our existing public schools.
Current ineffective policy (so-called "Progressive Discipline"--universally disliked by teachers) seems locked-in-place for now, which just helps charter school arguments against public schools (a little cui bono here--Possibly intentional & from the top?)

How can we change public schools discipline policies so as to disempower the disruptive, bullying kids (they are very often the same)?

THAT is one of the questions
we should be asking about public schools, for certain.

I do not believe the Teachers Union is the major obstacle in this area.

But SOME obstacle keeps the dysfunctional policy in place.

It's not that public schooling doesn't have problems, but I find the assumption that for-profit schools automatically do better, naive.

Perhaps a NON-PROFIT CHARTER would be the answer--Run by a board of teachers and parents with no profit-seeking businesspeople or career adminstrators in sight(?)

I don't have a problem with charters per se, just the PROFIT part of it & corporate involvement at a management level.

NON-profit public school charters with transparent management could be a very good investment of tax dollars.

Perhaps we could agree on that?

CarolineSF said...

The argument I've heard from some badly confused special-education advocates is that public schools do an imperfect job of educating disabled kids. Well, you can argue that charter schools don't do an imperfect job of educating disabled kids -- they just slam the door in the faces of disabled kids. Problem solved!

Ender said...

Ummm if you are going to respond to me, actually read what I said. None of what you just said had anything to do with what I said. You never once mentioned teachers unions going against virtual charters. You never once mention teachers unions going against vouchers that are ONLY given to high needs kids. Etc. You are getting lazy, which is odd for someone who writes so much.

nikto said...

Gosh, Ender, you are so...typical.

You are really showing your garden-variety 1-sided conservative anti-union roots.

It seems more like war than discussion here.
The age-old struggle, eh?
Unions Must Die. Right?

Do you like or agree with everything
Eli Broad, or Bill Gates, does?

The Heritage Foundation?

The GOP?

C'mon, grow up.

NO institution, even ones we tend to like, ONLY do things we agree with or applaud.

I don't agree with every stand the Union may take, any more than you are likely to agree 100% of the time with people you politically support, or vote for.

Basically, I can support "vouchers"
or any alternatives to Public School that involve NO PROFIT.

Any small influence I might have on my Union would be in that direction.
ANY charter or "reform"-format type of school is OK with me, as long as it is *non-profit*.
Period.

That way, you or anyone, could come in and either send your special-needs child to a charter/"reformed" school,
or, if you had a valid plan to submit through a parents group,
YOU and YOUR OWN crowd could start
a school to demonstrate the merits of your particular approach.

But not for profit.

That leaves a lot of latitude.

But not, alas, for profiteers.

nikto said...

Gosh, Ender, you are so...typical.

You are really showing your garden-variety 1-sided conservative anti-union roots.

It seems more like war than discussion here.
The age-old struggle, eh?
Unions Must Die. Right?

Do you like or agree with everything
Eli Broad, or Bill Gates, does?

The Heritage Foundation?

The GOP?

C'mon, grow up.

NO institution, even ones we tend to like, ONLY do things we agree with or applaud.

I don't agree with every stand the Union may take, any more than you are likely to agree 100% of the time with people you politically support, or vote for.

Basically, I can support "vouchers"
or any alternatives to Public School that involve NO PROFIT.

Any small influence I might have on my Union would be in that direction.
ANY charter or "reform"-format type of school is OK with me, as long as it is *non-profit*.
Period.

That way, you or anyone, could come in and either send your special-needs child to a charter/"reformed" school,
or, if you had a valid plan to submit through a parents group,
YOU and YOUR OWN crowd could start
a school to demonstrate the merits of your particular approach.

But not for profit.

That leaves a lot of latitude.

But not, alas, for profiteers.

I may not even be right in line with my Union on this (allowing ANY charter that is non-profit).

I'll need to check with my Union rep some time on the nuances of that policy.

By the way, my Union rep is a Christian conservative Republican.

But, God bless him, he now sees the light on corporate/for-profit charters and the deliberate insanity of the test expectations sent from above.

He's a dedicated teacher and family man, father of several young children.

He has opened his eyes and sees the "reform" movement as a threat to peoples' careers, including
his own.

It's fascinating to see reality having its inexorable effect on him;As he gets to see his own former, fond conservative ideas coming at him in reality, he doesn't actually like them so much.

But I digress.

OK, I tried to acknowledge
the Union issue.

Can we agree on the (NO)PROFIT part, at least?

nikto said...

(continued)

I may not even be right in line with my Union on this (allowing ANY charter that is non-profit).

I'll need to check with my Union rep some time on the nuances of that policy.

By the way, my Union rep is a Christian conservative Republican.

But, God bless him, he now sees the light on corporate/for-profit charters and the deliberate insanity of the test expectations sent from above.

He's a dedicated teacher and family man, father of several young children.

He has opened his eyes and sees the "reform" movement as a threat to peoples' careers, including
his own.

It's fascinating to see reality having its inexorable effect on him;As he gets to see his own former, fond conservative ideas coming at him in reality, he doesn't actually like them so much.

But I digress.

OK, I tried to acknowledge
the Union issue.

Can we agree on the (NO)PROFIT part, at least?

Ender said...

Yea, that viewpoint is far more agreeable. I don't like people making money off education anymore then you do. I just also know how bad being forced into a certain school can get.

BY LAW I had to go to my high school. It was illegal (and therefore impossible) for me to open enroll without using someone elses address, which is basically fraud but it happens. It didn't matter that there was times throughout my childhood I would have literally preferred juvie or a mental hospital, I was stuck.

All because of where I live and what my skin color was. Sure there were private school options, but for a working class family I would have basically had to sacrifice my college fund (which didn't have that much to begin with) and then some. Not very workable.

Now I see my friend being forced into much the same situation, and it pisses me off to no end. I am a firm believer in the idea of, "If you build it they will come", (I am an Iowan after all). I firmly believe that if we pass a law like yours, there will be people, largely parents and teachers, that will fill the need. I don't care if its private schools or charters or fully public schools. There is a need right now that is not being served, so lets serve them in whatever way possible and create more options in any system possible.

But yes, I agree that the for-profit thing does bring quite a few bad interests into the mix.

nikto said...

Thanks for your reply, Ender.

I think the profit issue is at the heart of what bothers many teachers about the current "reform/deform"
movement, which often tries to hide the profit motive which, many believe, is the MAIN motive.

Although most teachers feel they need their Union, as their only real line of defense in an unsympathetic world,
sometimes elements of that Union
seem to be bedfellows with
enemies of teachers and Public Schools...

http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2010/07/anyone-but-weingarten-vote-her-out-aft.html

Ender said...

I am not so sure that profit is everything though. I once saw a post on DU by a teacher that was going against the idea of the state increasing the amount of students allowed in the states virtual charter school. Profit never came up as a reason why. Instead it was the fact that it was non-unionized and the kids didn't have "real teachers", basically meaning real teachers would lose their jobs.

Profit comes up in this area for sure, as do recruiting tactics, and I don't like people making money off of it, but I don't think thats it. I got into a debate here a couple of weeks back about vouchers for special needs kids, it was clear that no one cared that it was a nonprofit other then me.

Let me ask you this, do you think teachers unions would be willing to give 1000 kids a better education if it meant 50,000 less in dues? There is a reason why they are called teachers unions not student unions. Do you think the auto workers unions are willing to sacrifice dues for better cars? Really?

nikto said...

I wasn't aware that Unions make executive decisions for either Schools or Auto Manufacturers.

I thought that was the CEOs' job.

And your question is a pre-loaded anti-Union question that implies Unions are responsible for kids' educations more than School and district administrations, and are the primary obstacle to school improvement, which is false.

But the media has done a good job of Union-bashing, for years.

I do know that my local Union has mad MANY concessions to the district recently in terms of noncontested furloughs and cuts.

I also know the Union Leadership at a national level is quite supportive of Obama/Duncan's/Gate's/Broad's "reform" push. :(

If union support for Washington's misguided "school-deform" are part of what you mean't,
I could agree with changing that.
But I'm not sure what dues has to do with it.

By the way, a friend of mine who teaches special Ed near downtown LA
thinks the idea of profit-charters taking special needs kids is fantasy-thinking.

Her regular, day-to-day experience has shown many many times that these schools reject special needs kids as too expensive to deal with, and normally won't take them, or will send them back to regular public school.
This comes from a decade-long teacher of special needs kids.

If all a kid needs is a "refuge" away from mean kids, bullies and gang-members with their constant taunts and invitations, well, I can think of dozens and dozens of kids I've taught recently who could use that too.
I can also think of a teacher or 20 who yearn for that.

I would love to take the "meek and mild", the effeminate kids, the hassled gay kids, the tormented "dorks", the weird, but gentle souls, the quietly gifted, but fearful and delicate ones, the sweet, but ridiculed fat/unnattractive kids and the unconventional thinkers who struggle to coexist with the mainstream crowd,
and
put them into a special "gentle school" where everyone is respectful to each other all the time, and harmony and/or peace are sought and constantly reinforced for an environment to truly learn and grow in.

That's where I'd like to teach.

But just try to get a school district or superintendent to go along with that!

nikto said...

I wasn't aware that Unions make executive decisions for either Schools or Auto Manufacturers.

I thought that was the CEOs' job.

And your question is a pre-loaded anti-Union question that implies Unions are responsible for kids' educations more than School and district administrations, and are the primary obstacle to school improvement, which is false.

But the media has done a good job of Union-bashing, for years.

I do know that my local Union has mad MANY concessions to the district recently in terms of noncontested furloughs and cuts.

I also know the Union Leadership at a national level is quite supportive of Obama/Duncan's/Gate's/Broad's "reform" push. :(

If union support for Washington's misguided "school-deform" are part of what you mean't,
I could agree with changing that.
But I'm not sure what dues has to do with it.

By the way, a friend of mine who teaches special Ed near downtown LA
thinks the idea of profit-charters taking special needs kids is fantasy-thinking.

Her regular, day-to-day experience has shown many many times that these schools reject special needs kids as too expensive to deal with, and normally won't take them, or will send them back to regular public school.
This comes from a decade-long teacher of special needs kids.

nikto said...

(cont)

If all a kid needs is a "refuge" away from mean kids, bullies and gang-members with their constant taunts and invitations, well, I can think of dozens and dozens of kids I've taught recently who could use that too.
I can also think of a teacher or 20 who yearn for that.

I would love to take the "meek and mild", the effeminate kids, the hassled gay kids, the tormented "dorks", the weird, but gentle souls, the quietly gifted, but fearful and delicate ones, the sweet, but ridiculed fat/unnattractive kids and the unconventional thinkers who struggle to coexist with the mainstream crowd,
and
put them into a special "gentle school" where everyone is respectful to each other all the time, and harmony and/or peace are sought and constantly reinforced for an environment to truly learn and grow in.

That's where I'd like to teach.

The current environment of many large high schools, even with Academies,
is a cattle-drive, rat-race, dog-eat-dog, test-score-crazy,
bully-enabling, thug-liberating,
merry-go-round.

I'll take my idea of the "gentle school" filled with mild-mannered "rejects", working safely apart from the vultures and bullies.

But just try to get a school district or superintendent to go along with that!