Friday, February 18, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Jay Greene, Political Bigotry, and Freedom of Non Speech
Below is a post by a well-known bloggist who refused to answer a simple and reasonable question. Subsequently, he did have the time to post another demogoguery-laden anti-union piece, which I guess answered my question indirectly.
Jay P. Greene's Blog
With Help From Some Friends
Gloom and Gloomier
The editors at Education Next have two essays on the state of education reform that remind me of Woody Allen’s never-delivered university commencement speech:
More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
In one essay, Paul Peterson, Marci Kanstoroom, and Chester Finn reject my rosy assessment of progress in the war of ideas about education reform, saying “It’s way, way too early to declare victory. Atop the cliffs and bastions that reformers are attacking, the opposition has plenty of weapons with which to hold its territory…. It’s dangerous to think a battle is over when it has just begun.”
In the other essay, Frederick Hess, Martin West, and Michael Petrilli go even further in their gloom, arguing not only that the war has hardly begun, but that the reform warriors are really the enemy:
First, reform “support” resides with a mostly uninformed, unengaged public—one that isn’t especially sold on their ideas and that, in any event, is often outmatched by well-organized, well-funded, and motivated special interests. And second, and more unfortunately, many reformers are eagerly overreaching the evidence and touting simplistic, slipshod proposals that are likely to end in spectacular failures. In short, some forces of reform are busy marching into the sea and turning notable victories into Pyrrhic ones. To quote that wizened observer of politics and policy, Pogo: We’ve met the enemy, and he is us.
That’s funny. I thought the enemy was a monopolistic, bureaucratized 19th century school system propped up by teacher unions and their allies who place the interests of adults over the needs of children. I guess I was wrong in not understanding that it is really the opponents of that system who are the problem.In truth, I don’t really disagree with much of what either essay has to say. It is all just a matter of emphasis and framing. In my declaration of victory I was careful to acknowledge that the war over policy has barely begun and reformers have a long and difficult road ahead:
We won! At least we’ve won the war of ideas. Our ideas for school reform are now the ones that elites and politicians are considering and they have soundly rejected the old ideas of more money, more money, and more money.
Now that I’ve said that, I have to acknowledge that winning the war of ideas is nowhere close to winning the policy war. As I’ve written before, the teacher unions are becoming like the tobacco industry. No one accepts their primary claims anymore, but that doesn’t mean they don’t continue to be powerful and that people don’t continue to smoke. The battle is turning into a struggle over the correct design and implementation of the reform ideas that are now commonly accepted. And the unions have shown that they are extremely good at blocking, diluting, or co-opting the correct design and implementation of reforms.
Rick Hess correctly demonstrated how important design and implementation are almost two decades ago in his books, Spinning Wheels and Revolution at the Margins. And it is always useful for him and others to remind reformers of the dangers that lurk in those union-infested waters. But for a moment can’t we just bask in the glow of our intellectual victory — even if our allies are a new crop of naive reformers?
Yes, there is a danger in thinking that the policy war is over when it has barely begun. And yes, there is a danger in over-promising and over-simplifying reform ideas. But there is also a danger in reform burn-out. The struggle over school reform has been going on for decades and will almost certainly take several decades more. Donors have grown frustrated and advocates have jumped to ill-conceived quick fixes that would set the cause of reform back significantly, like adopting national standards and assessments. If we don’t periodically note our policy progress and intellectual victories, we will have great difficulty sustaining the reform movement.
My view does not really differ substantially from the two essays in Education Next except that they see a greater danger in over-confidence and I see a greater danger in burnout. And I don’t mind being used as the straw man for their arguments. The Straw Man had a brain. Be the first to like this post.
Responses to Gloom and Gloomier.
- Had it occurred to you, Robert, that at on any given day or week there could be a multitude of pressing matters–deadlines, urgent issues, etc–that preclude responding at the snap of a finger to blog comments? I believe that is reasonable to assume.
Daniel Earley says:
Another reasonable assumption might be this: that some of us have personally met and know many of the philanthropists you allege as having ulterior motives. Witnessing their sacrifices and commitment regularly and quite intimately–including enormous amounts of personal time with no compensation or interest in it–it’s just ever so slightly possible that your question shows such a blind preloaded disregard for the genuine selflessness and generosity of so many that it may simply fail to merit a response.
- Daniel,
Robert says:
I assume that the subtitle of this blog makes it legitimate for you and others to respond to a question that I initially asked the person to whom the blog is titled.
You presented me with two reasons for not meriting an immediate response. Humility allows me to recognize the reasonableness of your first point about “drop of the dime” responses. Please forgive me, as I am new to the blogosphere.
Your second response is both interesting and confounding. Contrary to your insinuation, it is plain to see that I did not paint the title, “philanthropist” with a broad brush, and I feel that your reply was unnecessarily defensive, antagonistic, and morally condescending. There is nothing-absolutely nothing in my comments that reasonably qualifies as, “..show(ing) such a blind preloaded disregard…” for anyone. Consequently, any notion that I did not “merit a response” on that basis is unreasonable, and quite frankly, telling.
Although, in truth, I am not generally sympathetic with respect to the content on this blog, the genuine purpose of my initial question, after all, was simply to learn why proponents of this content subscribe to it so strongly. I didn’t realize I was entering an echo-chamber where people are offended by someone with the temerity to ask a reasonable question, which, by the way, would have been far less time consuming for you to have addressed.
The initial question stands…
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Playing Chicken With The Blame The Teacher Crowd
I recently critiqued a blog-post whose content parroted the drum-beated, hackneyed complaints about teacher unions that are heard, relentlessly, from the media-hogs of corporate think tanks.. When I repeatedly asked him to substantiate his views with facts, he balked. Here are our exchanges from his blog entry, followed by my summary. Our exchanges are highlighted in red. I welcome constructive comments.........
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Nothing quite signifies the intellectual bankruptcy of the unions better than this article. Faced with a significant national trend towards revoking tenure, the President of the NEA fires back with: an absurd story about an attempt to fire an Arizona teacher 30 years ago based upon a speech impediment that was actually an accent!
Mr. Van Roekel of the teachers’ union disagreed. Recounting a story that had the burnish of something told many times, he recalled that around 1980, when he was a union leader in Arizona, he had arranged to have a speech pathologist assess a teacher whom a principal was trying to fire because of a speech impediment. The pathologist determined that the teacher had a New York accent.
“She would say ‘ideer,’ instead of ‘idea,’ ” Mr. Van Roekel said. “The principal thought that was a speech impediment. Without a fair dismissal law, that principal could have fired her arbitrarily, without citing any reason.”
Riiiiiiiiight….
Could it be that I am the only one who has noticed that, despite all of the complaining that unions do about administrators, that the vast majority of them come straight out of the teaching ranks? Furthermore, the state of school accountability in Arizona 30 years ago would have been zilch, either in the form of testing or parental choice. Such a dearth of transparency and competitive pressure would enable the arbitrary firings of staff of even effective staff. Oddly though, zilch in the way of accountability, whether in the form of testing with teeth or parental choice is the prefered policy stance of the NEA.
Strange that.
Further, the debate over tenure that I am watching involves complex discussions about methods for measuring teacher effectiveness rather than proposals for arbitrary and capricious firing. I wonder what debate Van Roekel has been watching.
Since Matt was clearly evasive and unwilling to logically defend his assertions, I propose the following as explanations:
1. Matt, through my attempt to debate him, realized that his assertions were not reasonable and did not want to admit this. If this is true, he is doing a disservice to public education. His lack of humility should not result in the spread of misinformation. The intellectually honest thing for him to have done was to retract the assertions he made, in the blog where his article was originally posted. Had Matt properly engaged me in our discourse and successfully defended his assertions, I would have conceded as much. Matt's unwillingness to do so exemplifies a lack of "intellectual integrity".
2. Matt knew his assertions were not reasonable, even before I replied to his post, but has ideological reasons for propogating misinformation about teachers. This may include an allegiance to the notion of privatizing education so that investors can use taxpayer money to enrich themselves. Proponents of education privatization, for decades, have been seeking to use their money to dominate the media and access to policy-makers, for the purpose of undermining the public credibility of teacher-unions. Only by undermining their credibility can they win access to public money. Again, Matt should have been honest about his motives for attacking teachers and retracted his assertions, and in their place, put forth his real argument: "People should have the right to profit from the education of young people". This proposition, though debateable on it's merits, would at least result in more honest discourse, since it includes no no hidden agendas.
3. Matt knew his assertions were not reasonable, but is envious of the democratic protections that teachers enjoy, through their status as unionized public service sector professionals. He may be or may know a private sector employee that has lost his job (due to seniority, which is highly correlated in any profession with higher salary), or forced to accept an inadequate pension and or/benefits package. His knee-jerk assumption may be to accept the erosion of private sector benefits as being part of the natural order of things, but does not question the fairness of that. Instead, he may find it easier to wish that teachers become as unfortunate as he or his friend is, by accepting similar conditions. If this is true, he should, again, issue a retraction, and assert his real argument: "I have less than I used to. I am afraid to stand up to those that take it away from me, so I want everyone else to suffer the way I do".
While more honest, it is easy to understand Matt's unwillingness to take this position, as it is akin to the proverbial child who, after getting beaten up by the classroom bully, decides to take it out on the class nerd. by stealing his lunch money
NYT on Tenure Reform
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Nothing quite signifies the intellectual bankruptcy of the unions better than this article. Faced with a significant national trend towards revoking tenure, the President of the NEA fires back with: an absurd story about an attempt to fire an Arizona teacher 30 years ago based upon a speech impediment that was actually an accent!
Mr. Van Roekel of the teachers’ union disagreed. Recounting a story that had the burnish of something told many times, he recalled that around 1980, when he was a union leader in Arizona, he had arranged to have a speech pathologist assess a teacher whom a principal was trying to fire because of a speech impediment. The pathologist determined that the teacher had a New York accent.
“She would say ‘ideer,’ instead of ‘idea,’ ” Mr. Van Roekel said. “The principal thought that was a speech impediment. Without a fair dismissal law, that principal could have fired her arbitrarily, without citing any reason.”
Riiiiiiiiight….
Could it be that I am the only one who has noticed that, despite all of the complaining that unions do about administrators, that the vast majority of them come straight out of the teaching ranks? Furthermore, the state of school accountability in Arizona 30 years ago would have been zilch, either in the form of testing or parental choice. Such a dearth of transparency and competitive pressure would enable the arbitrary firings of staff of even effective staff. Oddly though, zilch in the way of accountability, whether in the form of testing with teeth or parental choice is the prefered policy stance of the NEA.
Strange that.
Further, the debate over tenure that I am watching involves complex discussions about methods for measuring teacher effectiveness rather than proposals for arbitrary and capricious firing. I wonder what debate Van Roekel has been watching.
This entry was posted on Friday, February 4th, 2011 at 5:48 pm and is filed under teacher quality, teacher union. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
LikeBe the first to like this post.
Responses to NYT on Tenure Reform
- Bob says:
Matthew,
There is much about your post that I find objectionable. To begin with, your last remark, where you suggest that “the debate” about measuring teacher effectivness is somehow, not capricious makes you either disingenuous or ignorant of administrative decision-making in work environments. Secondly,your use of the term, “debate” begs the question: What debate have “you” been watching? There is no debate on anything. There are only soundbites from big-money people with “reform” agendas and disproportionate access to the media. It’s not exactly Lincoln-Douglas out there. I’d love to see all of this free-market education reform nonsense subjected to the intellectual rigor of a real debate, properly moderated so facts can determine the winners and losers. Now that would be a debate worth watching.
There is much about your post that I find objectionable. To begin with, your last remark, where you suggest that “the debate” about measuring teacher effectivness is somehow, not capricious makes you either disingenuous or ignorant of administrative decision-making in work environments. Secondly,your use of the term, “debate” begs the question: What debate have “you” been watching? There is no debate on anything. There are only soundbites from big-money people with “reform” agendas and disproportionate access to the media. It’s not exactly Lincoln-Douglas out there. I’d love to see all of this free-market education reform nonsense subjected to the intellectual rigor of a real debate, properly moderated so facts can determine the winners and losers. Now that would be a debate worth watching.
- matthewladner says:
Bob-
You missed it! I’m afraid your side lost:
- Bob says:
Matt,
I’ll watch in it’s entirety, but judging from the first 5 minutes, surely you can’t consider this a debate. Could you? Spectators voting on the “outcome” is a valid intellectual excersise? I don’t think so. Were points assigned or witheld with respect to the validity of arguments and rebuttals? Individuals speaking in parallel soundbites, rather than in a conversational exchange? Doesn’t look like I missed much, but I’ll watch the rest of this, with an open mind, and keep my antennae up for something more legitimate, preferably, with a forum and format that is not stacked with corporate sponsorship and framed with language that is anti-union in it’s very conception.
I’ll watch in it’s entirety, but judging from the first 5 minutes, surely you can’t consider this a debate. Could you? Spectators voting on the “outcome” is a valid intellectual excersise? I don’t think so. Were points assigned or witheld with respect to the validity of arguments and rebuttals? Individuals speaking in parallel soundbites, rather than in a conversational exchange? Doesn’t look like I missed much, but I’ll watch the rest of this, with an open mind, and keep my antennae up for something more legitimate, preferably, with a forum and format that is not stacked with corporate sponsorship and framed with language that is anti-union in it’s very conception.
- Bob says:
Matt,
I watched it. I didn’t see any effective rebuttal or even attempt to rebut any of the so called evil-union proponents’ points. So, what were the spectators voting on? Probably the strength of the sound bites.
No, it seems “my side” didn’t lose a debate. It lost a pre-packaged sound-bite war.
I watched it. I didn’t see any effective rebuttal or even attempt to rebut any of the so called evil-union proponents’ points. So, what were the spectators voting on? Probably the strength of the sound bites.
No, it seems “my side” didn’t lose a debate. It lost a pre-packaged sound-bite war.
- Matthew Ladner says:
Bob-
You are free to value your own opinion over that of the audience if you wish. In my opinion, the fact that the President of the NEA responded to an interview with the New York Times with an absurd story about an alleged firing from 30 years ago is an incident which speaks for itself.
- Bob says:
Matt,
You seem to misunderstand. I am not writing to advocate for “my” opinion. You wrote a piece that I had factual reasons for criticizing. I pointed out one of the criticisms. You decided not to effectively rebut the criticisms (much like the anti-union panel members in the psuedo debate you referred to), by citing the “debate” as some kind of proxy proof for your assertions. You continue to do this in your recent post, by using a non-sequitor reference to something that a union advocate may or may not have said, without any sense of context. If you do not wish to rebut my initial criticism (or subsequent criticisms), you are free to do that. But, in the interests of establishing some standard of intellectual integrity to the “discourse” about education, it is reasonable to expect you to make some concessions when you are unwilling or unable to effectively rebut an argument that has merit (which the anti-union panel members did not do, and the audience members did not seem to regard as important).
You seem to misunderstand. I am not writing to advocate for “my” opinion. You wrote a piece that I had factual reasons for criticizing. I pointed out one of the criticisms. You decided not to effectively rebut the criticisms (much like the anti-union panel members in the psuedo debate you referred to), by citing the “debate” as some kind of proxy proof for your assertions. You continue to do this in your recent post, by using a non-sequitor reference to something that a union advocate may or may not have said, without any sense of context. If you do not wish to rebut my initial criticism (or subsequent criticisms), you are free to do that. But, in the interests of establishing some standard of intellectual integrity to the “discourse” about education, it is reasonable to expect you to make some concessions when you are unwilling or unable to effectively rebut an argument that has merit (which the anti-union panel members did not do, and the audience members did not seem to regard as important).
- matthewladner says:
Bob-
I can’t find any evidence of “factual reasons” in anything you’ve posted thus far.
- Bob says:
Matt,
If you think the criticisms in my original post (and subsequent posts) are not factual, please elaborate with something specific. The burden of proof is on you to defend the notions in your original post (which, inexplicably, you have avoided doing). My posts were simply to suggest that the facts do not support your position.
If you think the criticisms in my original post (and subsequent posts) are not factual, please elaborate with something specific. The burden of proof is on you to defend the notions in your original post (which, inexplicably, you have avoided doing). My posts were simply to suggest that the facts do not support your position.
- Matthewladner says:
Au contraire Bob- I don’t see anything in your original comment other than your opinion, to which you are entitled, but in which you have given me no reason to take an interest.
- Bob says:
Matt,
I am sorry that you are not interested in defending your position with facts. You were initially interested in rebutting my claim that there is no real substantive debate about the current educational reform agenda. However, your response was intellectually indefensable, as I pointed out with factual information available to anyone viewing the “debate” link you posted. It’s unfortunate that you don’t acknowledge as fact that the anti-union panel members in that forum did not rebut any statement made by their opposition.
I am sorry that you are not interested in defending your position with facts. You were initially interested in rebutting my claim that there is no real substantive debate about the current educational reform agenda. However, your response was intellectually indefensable, as I pointed out with factual information available to anyone viewing the “debate” link you posted. It’s unfortunate that you don’t acknowledge as fact that the anti-union panel members in that forum did not rebut any statement made by their opposition.
It is also unfortunate that you don’t take the same interest in defending legitimate criticism as you do in propogating misinformation about education.
It seems that I am wasting my time in my attempt at a constructive critical dialogue with you. At least our exchange is on the public record. Maybe that will mean something one day.
SUMMARYSince Matt was clearly evasive and unwilling to logically defend his assertions, I propose the following as explanations:
1. Matt, through my attempt to debate him, realized that his assertions were not reasonable and did not want to admit this. If this is true, he is doing a disservice to public education. His lack of humility should not result in the spread of misinformation. The intellectually honest thing for him to have done was to retract the assertions he made, in the blog where his article was originally posted. Had Matt properly engaged me in our discourse and successfully defended his assertions, I would have conceded as much. Matt's unwillingness to do so exemplifies a lack of "intellectual integrity".
2. Matt knew his assertions were not reasonable, even before I replied to his post, but has ideological reasons for propogating misinformation about teachers. This may include an allegiance to the notion of privatizing education so that investors can use taxpayer money to enrich themselves. Proponents of education privatization, for decades, have been seeking to use their money to dominate the media and access to policy-makers, for the purpose of undermining the public credibility of teacher-unions. Only by undermining their credibility can they win access to public money. Again, Matt should have been honest about his motives for attacking teachers and retracted his assertions, and in their place, put forth his real argument: "People should have the right to profit from the education of young people". This proposition, though debateable on it's merits, would at least result in more honest discourse, since it includes no no hidden agendas.
3. Matt knew his assertions were not reasonable, but is envious of the democratic protections that teachers enjoy, through their status as unionized public service sector professionals. He may be or may know a private sector employee that has lost his job (due to seniority, which is highly correlated in any profession with higher salary), or forced to accept an inadequate pension and or/benefits package. His knee-jerk assumption may be to accept the erosion of private sector benefits as being part of the natural order of things, but does not question the fairness of that. Instead, he may find it easier to wish that teachers become as unfortunate as he or his friend is, by accepting similar conditions. If this is true, he should, again, issue a retraction, and assert his real argument: "I have less than I used to. I am afraid to stand up to those that take it away from me, so I want everyone else to suffer the way I do".
While more honest, it is easy to understand Matt's unwillingness to take this position, as it is akin to the proverbial child who, after getting beaten up by the classroom bully, decides to take it out on the class nerd. by stealing his lunch money
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Thanks, for your question.
By “benefactors”, I am referring, specifically, to the private investors, including, but not limited to hedgefund managers who are not in it for the kids. They are in it for profit, using taxpayer funds (charter schools). I’m not claiming that the desire for profit, in itself, is a vice. but the unions are no more self-serving than are private investors. Both are part of the economic context in which public education operates. My point was that it is bigotry and/or naivete to attribute motives to one group and not to the other. They both have the same motives: maintaining a standard of economic survival. Many of the so-called philanthropists are really “venture philanthropists”, formerly referred to as “influence peddlers”. They have lots of reasons for “donating” (investing) in schools. Their “donations” have strings attached. My view is that no one should have the power to use their wealth to determine public policy. All of this teacher/union bashing obscures the realities about public education.