Tag Archives: Backlash Against Education Reform

John King’s Bully Pulpit

John King measures just how close he is to losing his job.

John King measures just how close he is to losing his job.

October is national anti-bullying month. A recent study suggests that schools with anti-bullying programs actually might have more incidents of bullying. While this might have something to do with the fact that such schools over report bullying incidents, the study confirms a general sense that anti-bullying programs do not work.

The sloganeering involved in most school anti-bullying campaigns is similar to the anti-drug campaigns popular in schools during the 1980s. Both efforts tend to gloss over complex societal issues in favor of hokey slogans. We knew that the crack plague of the 1980s was not going to end by teaching the next generation to “just say no”. Similarly, we know that teaching our children to recite words like “tolerance” and “respect” is not going to end this problem of “bullying”.

Bullying is not going away. This is because the currency of our school systems, the currency of this thing known as “education reform”, is naked bullying. Look at the parent in Maryland who was roughed up by a police officer for questioning the Common Core State Standards. Look at New York State Education Commissioner John King’s recent performance in front of concerned parents in Poughkeepsie where he first tried to talk over their concerns, then canceled the rest of his speaking tour when he discovered that New York parents do not want to be lectured to like children. For good measure, he accused these parents of being beholden to “special interests”.

John King’s comments actually represent the first stage of bullying. What makes it easy for children to bully another child is the sense that the victim is somehow flawed. The child can be labeled a “wimp” or “whore” or “gay” or “weird” or any number of labels. Once that label catches on with peers, it becomes permissible to then torment and torture the victim. This is how seemingly good people could be led to commit acts of unspeakable cruelty. Their “goodness” is reserved only for the acceptable members of society. Anyone who is out of those bounds is fair game. Dictators have used this strategy to persecute groups they did not like. Democracies use this tactic as well, often with greater success.

King’s labeling of concerned parents as a “special interest” is a favored tactic of education reformers. The reformers burst onto the scene with many labels. They labeled the schools as “failing”. They labeled the children as “stupid” or “violent”. They labeled teachers as “incompetent” and “lazy”. Thanks to a massive PR campaign funded by billions of education reform dollars, these labels stuck. This gave the reformers the public traction they needed to go ahead with their agenda. This agenda involved closing schools, disenfranchising parents, firing teachers and other acts of institutional violence that could be properly labeled as “bullying”.

The Common Core is just the latest incarnation of this bullying. The only difference is that now, after a decade of failed education reforms, it is tougher for the reformers to sell their tropes of “failing” schools and “underprepared” children to parents. They cannot make the labels stick, which means, hopefully, it will become harder to foist their will upon our public schools.

People should not be surprised by the actions of Commissioner King. As the founder of the Uncommon Schools charter network, King instituted the type of draconian discipline policies for which many charters have become notorious. As Pedro Noguera wrote about his visit to UC:

“I’ve visited this school, and I noticed that children are not allowed to talk in the hall, and they get punished for the most minor infraction. And when I talked with John King afterwards, I said, “I’ve never seen a school that serves affluent children where they’re not allowed to talk in the hall.” And he said, “Well, that might be true, but this is the model that works for us, we’ve found that this is the model that our kids need.”

So I asked him, “Are you preparing these kids to be leaders or followers? Because leaders get to talk in the hall. They get to talk over lunch, they get to go to the bathroom, and people can trust them. They don’t need surveillance and police officers in the bathroom.” And he looked at me like I was talking Latin, because his mindset is that these children couldn’t do that.

Unfortunately what is often driving these high-performing schools is the idea that the kids need to be broken. That the kids’ culture needs to be taken away from them and replaced with something else, because they come in with deficits. They come in as damaged goods. And these schools believe that their job is to mold the kids into something else.”

There probably is not any bullying at Uncommon Schools because the administration has a monopoly on the practice. King obviously already wrote the children in his school off as brutes. This made it easy for him to institute an uncommonly brutish discipline code that would have gotten him run out of the wealthier school districts in America. He made it a mission of his chain to bully children into behaving in the proper way. In the end, all bullying is ultimately aimed at getting the victim to conform to some preconceived norm.

This was King’s exact attitude towards the parents in Poughkeepsie. In his mind, the children of these parents were “unprepared” to meet the “challenges of the 21st century” and so need the Common Core to make America competitive. When the parents rebelled, he gave them a label reformers have traditionally reserved for teachers and their unions: “special interests”. This means that anyone who disagrees with John King or the Common Core are merely myopic naysayers who only care about themselves. It is a convenient way for him to justify to himself the imperious manner in which he handled the parents in the audience. It is a convenient way for him to justify all of the reforms he has helped force upon New York State up until now.

It should be recalled that King was the one who designed New York City’s disastrous teacher evaluation system. In that system, King called for teachers to be judged by the test scores of students who are not theirs in subjects they do not teach. We can see in this John King’s disdain for teachers. He has already labeled us as selfish “special interests” in need of the same draconian treatment as the students in Uncommon Schools. His evaluation system is institutionalized bullying.

When teachers get fired because students they never taught fail standardized exams, that is bullying. When students as young as 5 years old have to prepare, then sit, for standardized exams with no other purpose than to rate teachers, that is bullying. When the schools of these children close because they are labeled as “failing” due to these exams, that is bullying. When every public school is forced to abide by ridiculous standards that will serve to suck the joy out of learning, that is bullying. When the charter schools who are the shining stars of the reformer movement are exempt from all of these changes, that is bullying. The reformers have labeled a certain group of people, namely public school teachers, their children and now their parents, as failures in need of corrective action.

If incidents of bullying have increased over the past decade, there can be little wonder why. The way students behave within a school building reflect the environment created for them there by adults. If the school building is located downstream from where education reformers dump their effluvia, as most public school buildings today are, then it can be little wonder why bullying takes place there. If children see people like King and Michelle Rhee deride their teachers as “ineffective” and “special interests”; if they know the state wants to close them down because they are “failing”; if they now see their parents shrugged off and insulted by the State Education Commissioner, then it is the adults from whom the children are taking their cues.

The bullying problem in schools will never end until the way schools are run is fundamentally changed. Instead of autocratic mayors having unquestioned control of urban school districts, we need the type of local and democratic control of school systems for which America used to be known. Instead of putative standards enforced with putative tests, we need the type of school system that has a rich and open curriculum.

Many parent groups, understandably, are calling for John King to lose his job. While I sympathize with that sentiment, we all know that the disappearance of John King will only pave the way for another SEC with the same exact agenda. The only difference would be that Governor Cuomo will choose someone who is a more shrewd political operator. I say: keep John King as SEC. There can be no better poster child for the high-handed and bullyish tactics of the education reform movement. Nobody could do more damage to education reform in New York State than John King himself.

Advertisements

Where Does New Jersey Stand?

Besides bad drivers, bad air, too many highways, a bad governor and coastal flooding, what is there not to like about New Jersey?

Earlier this year, teachers in New York City were bracing themselves for two things that happened pretty much simultaneously. The first was the creation of a new evaluation system that uses a 20% value added metric on state exams. The second was the publication of how particular teachers’ students did on statewide exams. By most people’s judgments, we had lost on both counts. Our unions, both NYSUT and the UFT, seemed unwilling or unable to put up much of a fight. The reformers had their way with us and our students. We are already being introduced to the Danielson rubric and many of us have an idea of the type of statewide exam on which we are going to be judged. But other parts of the evaluation agreement have yet to be worked out.

And therein might be a glimmer of hope. By the time the negotiations and court cases over these particulars are resolved, our country and state might be headed in a different educational direction. The events of earlier this year were an outgrowth of a major effort by education reformers that had been gathering steam for over a decade. Their momentum crashed right over New York’s schools and changed our landscape for the worst. However, there might be reason to believe that the NY evaluation fiasco was the high tide of reform never to be replicated again here or elsewhere. To be sure, there were other major reformer victories, most notably the implosion of Philadelphia’s public school district. Yet, while the reformers were notching these victories, there were also signs that their influence was on the wane. The times seemed to be a-changin’ in that Spring and Summer of 2012, if only very incrementally.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel canceled the final 4% salary increase in the CTU’s contract, added to the school day without compensating teachers and promised to ratchet up the invasion of charters and testing. For his overreach, Emanuel now has a teacher strike on his hands. The results of this strike will go a long way in determining if the times are a-changin’ or not.

And, very quietly, a strange tenure reform law was passed in New Jersey. It did not get much national press, nobody spoke about it in detail (not even Chris Christie himself at the Republican National Convention) but it was a curious little law in a curious little state.

Christie become New Jersey’s governor right when the Tea Party “movement” was getting into full swing. He swept into office on a high tide of feelings of goodwill for conservative candidates nationwide. In a very short time, Christie has earned the reputation as one of the Republican party’s shining stars. He was even on the shortlist to be Mitt Romney’s running mate.

Part of his success has come from declaring war on many of the familiar bugaboos of the Republican Party, including public sector labor unions. It was clear from the day he assumed office that he was in the educational reformer camp, a group that includes many conservatives and so-called liberals.

Teachers particularly seemed to stick in his craw. He had disparaged teachers and their unions on many occasions, called for the total elimination of tenure and vowed to support charters and vouchers as an alternative to a school system he predictably labeled as “failing”. His sights, much like the sights of other governors like Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal and Andrew Cuomo, seemed to be squarely set on public school teachers. If a leader like Chris Christie, someone who was as popular and powerful as any governor in the union, wanted to drastically reform teaching in New Jersey, there would be very little hope anyone can stop him.

The only group that had the power to stand in his way was the New Jersey Education Association, New Jersey’s statewide teacher union. If Christie wanted to reform teaching in the state, he would have to reckon with them. Christie floated the familiar education reform schemes: merit pay, elimination of due process and, most drastically, an end to collective bargaining. Would the NJEA roll over and die on these issues like so many other teacher unions? One thing they had going for them was the fact that many NJ school districts are rated top notch nationwide. There seemed to be very little “dead wood” on the teaching staffs in NJ and, when they were found, they mysteriously were concentrated in places like Newark and Camden. I wonder why?

After two years of attacking teachers and their unions, and after many months of contentious negotiations where Christie’s camp was bolstered by the likes of DFER, the deal that he struck with the NJEA was the following:

1) Teachers needed 4 years of effective ratings to get tenure

and

2) Teachers who already have tenure can face termination proceedings if given two ineffective ratings in a row.

Furthermore, the termination proceedings in NJ were supposedly streamlined so that hearings are less expensive and faster. In NYC, this has meant the hiring of a new crop of arbitrators who seem hell-bent on firing everyone. What this means for NJ only time will tell. The NJEA was also able to preserve “last in, first out” in the case of teacher layoffs.

There was something about this law that seemed different from many of the other tenure reform laws passed around the country. In short, it did not seem like a wholesale victory for the reformers. In fact, it did not seem as if Chris Christie got anything he wanted out of this deal at all. Where was the merit pay? The destruction of tenure? The elimination of collective bargaining? Chris Christie got nothing out of this deal.

Maybe this is why he did not race to sign the bill into law. After all, Romney was still choosing his running mate at this time and Christie was a serious contender. He did not want to be associated with such a union-friendly bill at such an important time in his political career. Magically, after Romney chose Paul Ryan, Christie signed the bill into law at a big ceremony with NJEA and DFER officials. They all hugged and shook hands and made speeches about the spirit of collaboration.

But teachers in New Jersey were asking about what had just happened. They saw what transpired right over the border in Philadelphia and New York. Despite all of that, could this be? Was this actually a victory for the teachers’ union? Cami Anderson, the reformers’ darling superintendent of Newark’s schools, gave us a clue when her reaction to the law was something along the lines of “what, we still have last in, first out?” She was not applauding it, making it a strange education law indeed.

To be sure, this was just one fight of many to come. There promises to be efforts to tie teacher evaluations to standardized exams, to institute merit pay and to dot the Garden State with charters. The NJEA will have to keep fighting, and they will hopefully do just that.

Maybe New Jersey, with its popular reformer governor and decidedly un-reformer tenure law, was the hinge. Maybe on the heels of the NY nightmare and the Philadelphia implosion, New Jersey was the rock on the shore that did not get washed away. Perhaps, just perhaps, that was the sign that the reformers were losing steam. A little more than a month after this law was signed, Chicago’s teachers went out on strike.

Maybe the NJEA and the brave Chicago teachers are pointing the way for those of us in New York. The UFT has yet to work out a deal with the city regarding the student assessment portion of the new evaluations. There also has yet to be a test case in the courts over using standardized exams and value added metrics to rate teachers. When these things do happen, maybe the environment will be more conducive to teachers and more respectful of our profession. It is up to us and our union leadership to hold their ground and act on the examples put forth by the NJEA and the CTU.

It is time to push back. All the union activists, opt-out leaders, public education advocates, anyone with a desire to save the institution of public schooling, maybe now is the time for us to go on the offensive, or at least play a stronger defense.

And maybe one day we can look back on it and say it started with a little law in the state of New Jersey.