Join the conversation

<<

This doesn't apply across the board, but we can't dare forget the deinstrutrialization of America, starting in the early 1970s. Anti-union corporate headhunters led a divide and conquer camapign to undercut unions, as well as the tax bases. States competed to give bigger and bigger cutbacks, cut wages, and cut the social safety net. The givebacks did not save jobs though. (Michelle Rhee's dual contract was right out of their union-busting playbook)

Yes, many anti-union "reformers" are sincere, but old corporate powers were often sincere in believing they could not compete in a world market without breaking unions and destroying the legacy of the New Deal. Todays' "reformers" seem to see themselves as a huricane that will wash away the "status quo" in the faith that creative destruction will create a better world.

Those of us who believe differently must recognize the stakes. If you don't believe dispowering and deprofessionalizing teachers is a good idea, then you must approach the RttT cautiously.

Randi seems to have struck a good balance, but the battle is just starting.

The thing about "trust" though, is this: you can trust an individual much more easily than an organization. I have had the same mailman for 13 years, and I trust him. It does not follow that I trust the USPS and will wave flags during USPS speeches. The same line of logic goes for schools, DESE and just about anything else you can imagine.

There are a few teachers I trust because it's been earned, a few I don't because it's been broken, and many to whom I give the benefit of the doubt in questionable circumstances.

Would I give the "benefit of the doubt" to Randi Weingarten? She argued for common standards in education and posited herself as someone reallllly open to any solution that works for kids unless it takes actual cash money away from public schools. So, no, I wouldn't. Do you think people like that would "trust" me to educate my own children, or even get around to providing adequate food and healthcare for said children?

Go look at the AFT website and you have your answer, friend.

John--I think we should be careful--and I suspect you would agree--not to paint all "reformers" with the same broad brush. Yes, I do think there are some who have a "take no prisoners" attitude, which is scary. But it's also true that some of their most aggressive foes go way over the top. Those are the people who undermine trust.

It's also important to remember that there are many reformers within the establishment, a fact that makes the line between the two terms blurry. Many of the successful reformers have been very good at forging a climate of trust from the outset. Not an easy task, to be sure, but certainly critical.

Mrs. C--I believe that organizations we can trust are those that foster a climate of trust among the individuals who work for them.  That climate should also foster trust between organizations and the communities they serve. It's hard to get there, but transparency and a conviction that most people have the right intentions--and are willing to join forces to find the best way forward--have to come first.

I know that you don't trust the Common Core standards not to stifle your efforts and your right to educate your children according to your family's aspirations and values. I don't agree that the Common Core would have that effect, but I know we've had that conversation before. :)  Still, I worry about what happens when we trust individuals only.

Claus,

yes, I don't want to paint all "reformers" with the same brush and I hope I am clear on that. There is a fundamental difference between the "reform" movement and traditional reformers and others. You can agree or disagree with us, but we have concrete proposals based on social science. But the "reform" agenda doesn't come close to articulating a theory of how improvements can occur. The soundbites of "raise expectations," use data, and hold people accountable do not come close to even a hypothesis of how schools can be turned around.

I think its fair the say that the "reform" agenda fundamentally is based on:

A) destroy the status quo, and then
b) the creative destruction of the Market and educators unfettered from old institutions.

They concentrate on destroying the old in the faith that SOMETHING new will solve the problem.