Re: Teacher bashing in the letter

[monty@fairtest.org]

George's post raises both specific and general issues. I will try to  
keep this response fairly brief.

First, George reads into the letter what is not there - and has never  
been there in anything FairTest has written. We say professional  
development should be in the hands primarily of local educators. My  
understanding is that this too is the view of Linda, who is not on  
this list. Our support for this can also be seen in the paper on  
performance assessment posted to FairTest yesterday, and in the Forum  
on Educational Accountability legislative proposals. Indeed, I am in  
Washington today thru Friday, among other things meeting with  
Congressional staff. We do support enhanced professional development  
and do believe how it is done and its focus should be primarily a  
school matter. That professional development can be and often is done  
badly is not in dispute. Our views on the content of professional  
development that should be supported are in the legislative proposal  
and in the FEA report on accountability also on the FEA site and the  
FairTest site.

If George thinks no teachers need professional development and such  
support should not exist, then I disagree with him and know many  
school-based educators, including in urban schools, who also disagree.  
Teachers don't come out of ed school knowing how to teach - they need  
to learn over time, preferably through collaboration with more  
knowledgeable teachers, who in turn usually recognize they too have  
more to learn.

This is not a substitute for better resourced schools - indeed,  
without better resources most urban and rural under-resourced schools  
will have a hard time doing this well - since teacher time spend on  
collaborative work and professional development should be paid time.

The nation has a letter length limit we pushed to the edge, so the  
letter is necessarily brief. But we have repeatedly stated in more  
detail our views on professional development, which George apparently  
chooses to ignore.

Many problems of schools originate from outside of schools and schools  
cannot solve them. It does not follow that nothing needs improvement  
in schools. I think much does, as do many of this list who have  
offered various visions and strategies for improvement. I have no  
doubt that what can be accomplished is seriously circumscribed by both  
outside factors and the funding of schools. That does not mean we  
should ignore what can be done in schools. Nor does it mean the only  
permissable conversation is about those non-school factors.

The bigger, general issue is NCLB. I read George to say that NCLB and  
ESEA and federal involvement in schools should be eliminated. I think  
one can make a case that NCLB does more harm than any good that comes  
from its money - though it is a tight case, and I suspect eliminating  
ESEA would only be supported in Congress by the extreme right wing. If  
one does not choose to call for the elkmination of ESEA, then we must  
battle for changing the federal law so that it is not a test and  
punish instrument to promote neoliberalism, more intense class and  
race stratification, and privatization. In any event, while NCLB may  
well not be reauthorized in this Congress, even if I thought we would  
be better off with no federal law, that is not going to happen. If  
NCLB is not reauthorized, it will continue.

Thus I think there are two aspects to this battle. One is making  
changes so that the next ESEA, this year or 2009, definitely does more  
good than harm. I believe the changes proposed by FEA in the realms of  
AYP, testing, sanctions and positive push for locally controlled  
professional development and greater parent involvement all contribute  
to that positive end. They also must be combined - multiple measures  
within AYP and sanctions will be a mess, probably making things a bit  
better in some places and worse in others, but not a solution. Etc. I  
do note that among those who have endorsed the Educator Roundtable  
position and then gone on to call for specific changes are usually  
both very similar to FEA and not as comprehensive.

Longer term, education change must be part and parcel of battles for  
equity, participatory democracy, etc, in the political, economic and  
social spheres as well as in education itself. The changes FEA is  
proposing can contribute to strengthened local involvement,  
empowerment and democracy. I know George supports some such efforts,  
at least I think he does, such as Local School Councils - a positive  
change that exists within the enormously inequitable Chicago System,  
and that is under attack by the neoliberals in charge of CPS and  
Chicago.

There is also a needfor a long-term strategy therefore, which  
conversations on this list sometimes contribute to. That goes way  
beyond NCLB or the federal role. FairTest has been and will continue  
to be a contributor to that discussion and effort.

In the short term, since Congressional staff are now starting to write  
what will be new legislation, that is where I will focus my attention,  
striving to win as much as possible so as to get the boot off the neck  
of teachers, students, parents, communities. Removing that book will  
make it far more likely that more signficant changes can then be won  
at the state and local levels - and if we are really successful, there  
will also be money schools can use in ways to really strive to improve  
themselves.

Hence the debate. I am unsure what forums George has in mind from  
which he has been excluded. PURE and FairTest did an event in Chicago  
to release a report we co-authored, and which George did not attend  
due to other commitments (a report, BTW, that George said he  
supported). FairTest has not sponsored any public forums, tho we have  
participated in some.

More importantly, if George and others want to abolish ESEA and ensure  
no federal funding for or intrusion into local schools, they should  
make the case to members of Congress. I assume in doing so they will  
attack AYP, the testing and sanctions regime, and the damage caused by  
those things. In this we are allies, and in the short term, as  
Congressional committees prepare to actually write a bill, we should  
put our energies there. Win,lose, or in between, there will then be  
plenty to debate about what we can do to ensure high-quality education  
for all children.

Monty

Quoting Csubstance@aol.com:

> 5/16/07
>
> The Nation letter from Fair Test includes the usual teacher bashing, to wit,
> that "high quality professional development" (read, "professors," "external
> partners") are just what's needed to solve the deficiencies of inner city
> teachers.
>
> Based on what evidence?
>
> During the 28 years I taught in the inner city, the problem we faced were not
> going to be solved by a bunch of outsiders, preaching from abstract theories,
> empowered to talk down to us.
>
> If the problems faced by inner city schools are primarily outside the schools
> (Rothstein, etc), then why do those who want to "reform" inner city schools
> persist in the teacher bashing mantra that "professional development" will
> solve those problems?
>
> Chicago just spent (over the past 12 years, since Chicago became one of the
> stalking horses for every piece of corporate school reform, which is  
>  now NCLB)
> more than $500 million on external partners and outside experts to "heal"
> inner city schools. Once the scam was obvious to inner city   
> teachers, those who co
> uld bailed out, taking suburban or non inner city jobs that automatically
> turned them from "bad teachers" (i.e., needing "professional   
> development") into
> good teachers.
>
> As long as the underlying rationale of those who want to reform (rather than
> abolish) "No Child Left Behind" can continue to preach expensive and failed
> teacher bashing strategies and tactics from outside and while   
> ignoring the real
> problem, the problems will persist.
>
> No.
>
> Reforming NCLB is not the answer.
>
> The recent essays in The Nation were examples of the problem.
>
> And the teacher bashing in both The Nation and in Fair Test's Nation letter
> are simply persisting the problem.
>
> Abolition, not amelioration, is the answer to NCLB. Right now, nothing from
> the feds is better than anything that will come about under "Reform"  
>  "Reformed"
> (i.e., a new version of the same old neoliberal nonsense embodied in NCLB).
>
> It's time for y'all to join the real movement to bring back decent public
> schools for all Americans. Abolish NCLB and address the real problems. By
> proposing "reforms" to NCLB you are proposing a continuation of the   
> diversion from
> addressing those problems. I may like some of you, but you are wrong  
>  here, and
> your "solutions" are only going to continue the problems.
>
> And I'd love to debate you on any panel you establish (with or without your
> friends from the recent Nation issue) where everyone gets to talk under the
> same ground rules. Fact is, you've avoided sharing time and space   
> with those of
> us who challenge both the underlying rationales for NCLB and the   
> possibility of
> reforming it.
>
> It's time to put the entire spread of the debate out there in public.
>
> George N. Schmidt
> Editor, Substance
> www.substancenews.com<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR>
> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.</HTML>