Re: letter to SacBee re Rhee

[aburke5054@aol.com]

 When someone tries to bring in Aristotle against me I know I am going to be wading through some pretty deep stuff.


Michelle Rhee believes what has been demonstrated to be true: that the quality of the teacher is as powerful a determiner of children's achievement than anything else connected to their schools. Tap dance around that.


 Art

 

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sheridan <learn@jps.net>
To: arn-l <arn-l@interversity.org>
Sent: Thu, Dec 16, 2010 9:22 pm
Subject: Re: [arn-l] letter to SacBee re Rhee


On occasion, it can be a pleasure to point out Art's errors in facts 

and logic. There seems to be no record that any quantity of evidence 

or any argument, no matter how cogent, has ever led him to change his 

mind, which is why some people suspect he must be paid to spread his 

disinformation, and why others long ago quit responding to his 

messages. I have never attempted to guess his motivation, but it's 

clear that he has no scruples about twisting facts, misrepresenting 

statements and employing all the classic Aristotelian fallacies. 

That's part of what makes it so delicious when he is well and truly 

caught out. When families at Compton's McKinley School denounced the 

Parent Revolution petition, he blamed their actions on outside 

agitators. Then the local PTA weighed in. Will Art continue citing 

"Compton parents"?



When Art writes that I "may believe that Michelle Rhee blames 

teachers," is he suggesting that she doesn't?



Is he suggesting (as she does) that replacing current teachers with 

better ones would enable all low-income students to overcome the 

myriad of obstacles in their paths?



The schools that Rhee stigmatizes as "dropout factories" tend to be 

racially isolated and to have high concentrations of poverty and of 

English language learners. Can those schools or the teachers in them 

make a difference? We hope so. For teachers who choose to remain in 

such schools, that's a major reason for their choice. But the 

pretense teachers can make all the difference is Dickensian in its 

heartlessness.



Why would we not want to improve -substantially - the conditions of 

children's lives outside school? There are two reasons, really the 

two sides of the same coin: It will cost billions of dollars, and 

powerful interests oppose giving government the ability to raise and 

spend that kind of money.



I believe, as Art writes, that Michelle Rhee is "a point-person for a 

coordinated attack designed to blunt criticism of society's failures 

by casting unfair blame on schools." But to believe what is obvious 

to any informed person not willfully blinded by special interests is 

not to fail children. To keep quiet, to go along, in the hope that my 

students' test scores will be high enough to shield me from criticism 

- that would be a betrayal of children.



I teach students from a range of income levels - some whose families 

make quite a bit more money than I do and some who have no running 

water, live with grandparents because their parents are in prison, or 

move from place to place because their families can't come up with 

the rent. My school is a high quality school, not only because we 

have many excellent teachers but also because we have some parental 

support in the form of fundraisers and classroom volunteers. Having a 

stable faculty has enabled us to maintain a consistent program for 

students regardless of changes in administration. We also have that 

range of family backgrounds, so that students whose families cannot 

give them all the support they need benefit in many ways from being 

in the same classes with some who are more fortunate. Low income 

students who transfer into my school are usually far behind. If they 

stay long enough, we are often able to help them catch up. But they 

can't all stay. Some drift along like leaves blown by the winds of 

economic disaster. And if I, and all my colleagues from this 

excellent school, transferred en masse to one of those "persistently 

low-achieving schools" Secretary Duncan wants to close, without 

volunteers and fund-raisers and students from stable and secure 

families, we could not be nearly as effective as we are at our 

current school. We're already using all our strength and skill to do 

a good job. We really couldn't work much harder or smarter, and so we 

would fall short. If, in addition, we were subjected to an endless 

rotation of administrators attempting to impose the latest nostrums 

direct from Washington or Sacramento, it would be hard even to keep 

doing the things we currently do well.



I do not argue that schools cannot improve until we totally reform 

our economy, but I am convinced that we can accomplish more for 

students in high-priority schools through improved child nutrition 

and library funding than through distractions such as the so-called 

Race to the Top. Union jobs for parents would do a lot for school 

attendance, discipline and graduation rates.



At 11:25 AM 12/16/2010 -0500, Art Burke wrote:



>  You have it completely backwards.

>

>It's true that disadvantaged children achieve at lower levels than 

>advantaged children. That sad fact is the reason that ESEA came into 

>being in 1965. The reason NCLB came into being in 2001 was precisely 

>because civil rights groups, advocates for disadvantaged children, 

>and politicians of all persuasion grew tired of hearing that schools 

>can't make a difference until children's lives outside school are 

>substantially improved. That is exactly what you're arguing.

>

>We now have convincing evidence that disadvantaged children who 

>transfer to high quality schools achieve at higher levels than they 

>did before. Michelle Rhee knows this, civil rights groups know this, 

>liberal and progressive politicians know this, and the nation's 

>major news organizations know this. Compton parents know that. You 

>may believe that Michelle Rhee blames teachers and that she is a 

>point-person for a coordinated attack designed to blunt criticism of 

>society's failures by casting unfair blame on schools. Or you may be 

>just repeating stuff fed to you through your propaganda pipeline. 

>Either way you fail disadvantaged children.

>

>Art

>

>

>

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: George Sheridan <learn@jps.net>

>To: arn-l <arn-l@interversity.org>

>Sent: Tue, Dec 14, 2010 6:22 pm

>Subject: Re: [arn-l] letter to SacBee re Rhee

>

>

>At 10:45 AM 12/14/2010 -0500, Art Burke wrote:

>

> >I guess you just forgot to identify yourself as a teacher and a

>

> >union official. Or maybe you just wanted to do your part for the

>

> >environment by saving newsprint.

>

>

>

>Good point, Art. As soon as they give me as many inches of newsprint

>

>as they give Michelle Rhee (I currently get ten percent if my

>

>letter's printed at all), I'll be happy to say that I started working

>

>in public schools in 1968 and teach first and second grade full time.

>

>I'll tell how and why I became a union activist. (So far as I know,

>

>no one becomes a teacher in the hope of being elected local union president.)

>

>

>

>Knowing that a letter was written by a teacher makes most readers

>

>more likely to believe it. But The Bee limits letters to fewer than

>

>200 words, so I concentrate on the most important ideas, as in these

>

>sentences from the most recent letter: "In our country, test scores

>

>correlate with zip codes. Schools in some neighborhoods struggle

>

>because children in those communities are suffering." And this:

>

>"Rhee's campaign to blame teachers distracts voters from the need to

>

>change the odds for students."

>

>

>

>No conceivable change in the education work force is either necessary

>

>or sufficient to create educational opportunity for all. What is

>

>necessary is the kind of support for young people routinely provided

>

>in other wealthy countries.

>

>

>

>Art Burke also wrote:

>

>

>

> >The malarkey that education reform a la NCLB promotes the interests

>

> >of corporations and not public education was exploded a few summers

>

> >ago when the nation's civil rights establishment rose up to oppose

>

> >legislation that would have weakened NCLB's accountability

>

> >requirements, the very same requirements that you claim are part of

>

> >the nefarious corporate agenda. That line of bull has lost teachers'

>

> >unions a huge amount of respect, so much so that teachers' unions

>

> >are now openly criticized by liberal and progressive politicians and

>

> >by civil rights leaders as a prime roadblock to improving schools.

>

>

>

>I've been a civil rights activist since 1964. Can anyone count how

>

>many times over the years Art has written "the nation's civil rights

>

>establishment rose up ..."? As time goes by, this line rings more and

>

>more hollow, given that civil rights organizations today are part of

>

>the overwhelming consensus against NCLB.

>

>

>

>Unlike Michelle Rhee's newest venture, that consensus grew

>

>organically as more and more people became aware of the reality

>

>behind the "civil rights" rhetoric.

>

>

>

>

>

>George Sheridan

>

>

>

>

>

>

>



George Sheridan 



------------------------------------------------

Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net