Mother, artist, teacher, education activist, former NJ State Legislature candidate, that teacher in that Chris Christie You Tube video, writing about education, poverty, politics, women's issues, social justice and living in a world gone strange.
Pearson: Rolling over teachers who dare to speak out
It began with discreet data collection. For a while now Pearson has been quietly collecting information about our children, students and schools, and sharing it with third party vendors—many of which are funded with 'reformy' money—for a whole host of reasons. Then last year, Bob Braun's blog site was mysteriously shut down for a brief period coincidentally right after he posted this piece about Pearson spying on students who were tweeting about the PARCC test. Valerie Strauss picked up the story in her column at the Washington Post. But wait, there's more... Leonie Haimson and the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy have been monitoring student data mining for quite some time. Just two months ago they reported that Lacey Twp parent, Heather Hicks, complained to her local board of ed about a blended learning software used in her son's biology class, the contract for which was later not renewed.
Heather was surprised to discover later that she was repeatedly criticized by Bruce Friend, the chief operating officer of iNACOL (the International Association of K-12 Online Learning) in a February 10, 2016 workshop he gave at Pearson’s CITE 2016 conference – in a presentation called “Gaining Stakeholder Buy-in for your Online/Blended Learning Program.” He later gave the same presentation at the Mid-Atlantic Conference on Personalized Learning, where the session was described this way:
Gaining Stakeholder Buy-in for Blended Learning This session will address the importance of gaining stakeholder support as you seek to build a blended (or online) learning program. Stakeholders include students, parents, teachers, school leaders. We will share effective strategies in gaining the support of these key contacts; discuss barriers to gaining support; and share examples of the consequences when stakeholder support is not achieved.
Heather made this video to tell the real story of what happened. It highlights the lengths to which ed 'reformers' will go to spin their rhetoric, deny the facts and crush the opposition. This is the only way they can keep their house of cards from falling. Obviously what Heather did struck a nerve. Please watch this video before you read the rest of this post.
Celia Oyler, professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, posted a biting commentary by an anonymous teacher about the flaws of PARCC. She received a letter from PARCC threatening legal action unless she removed the post because it contained copyrighted material —and divulged the name of the author.
Oyler left the post on her blog but removed anything that might be copyrighted. She has not given up the name of the author. Many people who posted a link to Oyler’s original post or tweeted it received an email warning that they should remove the link or expect legal action.
Peter Greene posted about the test, based on Oyler’s blog, and flew under the radar. He didn’t receive a threat from PARCC, and I feel badly for him.
He wrote, in his inimitable fashion (emphasis mine):
“You know what kind of test needs this sort of heavy security? A crappy test.”
As Leonie Haimson said in a tweet, it is crazy to give a test to millions of students and expect that no one would write about it or talk about it.
There is something worse than disclosure of “secure” test items. There is loss of reputation. And that is what PARCC is putting at risk with its heavy-handed tactics.
This teacher is no Edward Snowden. He/she is not giving up state secrets. There is no imminent threat of invasion or terrorist attack. As Diane said, the only 'threat' here is the loss of a reputation built on... well... CCRAP. Taxpayers have the right to know how their money is being wasted. Parents and students have the right to know how completely inappropriate this test is. And educators have the right to blow the whistle. Although I don't want to see this teacher punished in any way, I do look forward to the day that Pearson does take someone to court, and they have to defend this worthless piece of CCRAP.
Without unions, workers will lose many of the protections against abusive employers. Wages for all will be depressed, even as corporate profits soar. The American Dream will be destroyed for millions. And we will have a government of the corporations, by the already powerful, for the wealthy. ~ Kenneth Bernstein, teacher, author, education activist
What has been rumored for several weeks is now pretty much a sure thing. The NEA board of directors are meeting next week and they will go through the motions of taking a vote. But an endorsement of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party primary race is all but assured. (emphasis mine)
[S]ince this is only an endorsement for the primary election, the matter would not need to go before the Representative Assembly (RA). In effect, the move could sidestep the voices of the RA’s 8,000 delegates representing state and local affiliates, student members, retired members, and other segments of the united education profession.
The decision would be made by a handful of leaders and the PAC council. Though there are thousands of PAC council votes, they are distributed by the amount of money raised by each state’s members. This means that little states like Delaware – where members donate greatly – have a larger vote relative to their membership than other states.
The voices of the great majority of members would be silenced. (more on this below)
Even though I want a woman president, and I know I will see that happen in my lifetime, I don't want a president—man or woman—who does not stand for the views and values of public education as supported by the vast majority of hard-working NEA and AFT members in this country. The NEA should not endorse this early in the campaign. AFT did it this past summer and got substandial pushback from its members including a Change.org petition calling for a re-call of the endorsement and thousands of angry posts on the association's Facebook page. AFT President Randi Weingarten is good friends with Clinton and sits on the board of Priorities USA, a pro-Hillary super PAC.
Follow the money
If you're reading this post, chances are you've seen this meme floating around social media:
Social media memes say that Clinton’s top 10 donors are mainly "banks, corporations and media," while Bernie Sanders’ top 10 donors are labor unions. This contention fits quite closely with campaign data from the Center for Responsive Politics. However, it’s worth noting that this data refers to cumulative donations as far back as the 1980s, rather than just donations to their current presidential bids. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True. (emphasis mine)
Donors must disclose their place of employment when making campaign contributions, so it is entirely possible that some of these contributions could be comprised of individual donations from company employees rather than a few large checks from that organization. According to the most recent report from The Center for Responsive Politics, so far in this election cycle Clinton's campaign has raised over $47.5 million while Sanders has raised almost $16.5 million. This does not include PAC contributions. But while 70% of Sanders' money has come from small, individual contributions, 82% of Clinton's has come from large, individual donors. And that's a big, red flag. Don't forget, President Bill Clinton signed the New Market Tax Credits bill into law that opened the floodgates for hedge fund investment in urban charter schools. And who has lots of money these days and is spending it on education 'reform'? Hedge fund managers, among others. Wall Street money.
NOTE: The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Look at what that $815K from Microsoft employees has cost us as a nation. I remember sitting on the floor of the 2012 NEA RA and the buzz going around that convention center when, not President Barak Obama, but Vice President Joe Biden addressed the delegation. A lot of people were very angry—but not at Biden. While President Obama did address us via phone, it felt to many of us like he was afraid to face us, and rightly so. While I voted for him twice, the second time I held my nose because he was the lesser of two evils. The Obama-Gates-Duncan education policies have brought US public education to its knees—and I never, ever thought I'd say that about a Democratic president. President Obama sold public education and our students to the highest bidders: Wall Street, Gates, Pearson, Eli Broad, The Walton Foundation, and everyone else who is profiting in the Gold Rush Education Rush of the 21st Century. We have no proof whatsoever that Clinton—or any of the candidates—will put an end to this madness, so why should we write them a check this early in the game?
See for yourself
Here are the videos of the three Democratic presidential candidates that were shown at the NEA RA in July. Watch for yourself: Hillary Clinton: Bernie Sanders:
There is nothing in Hillary's speech that screams, "We must elect this woman!" Quite frankly, there's nothing in any of the speeches that screams that. And while Sanders' speech isn't as passionate as I've seen him in the past, in Klonsky's post above, he goes on to say this:
In her talks with state union leaders around the country [NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia] has admitted that Bernie Sanders and the NEA are more often in 100% agreement on education issuesbut that Hillary is more electable. (emphasis mine)
Do we want to support a candidate that's electable? Of course. No one wants to back a loser. And although my personal position is in support of Sanders, I don't want to see NEA endorse any of them yet. There are too many unknowns. If our national association does not first and foremost support our students, our profession and our public schools, we might just as well line up at the door of the local charter school to apply for a job because pretty soon that's all that will be available. We have been playing nice for too long. Public education is being bulldozed into the ground. Democracy is being trampled in the name of 'choice'. Our schools are grossly underfunded; our students over tested; our professionals subjected to McCarthy-era witch hunts; and our neediest, poorest students of color are being segregated in numbers not seen since before the Civil Rights Movement.
Time for action!
It's time our association stood up and carved that canyon in stone. With 'reform'-style politicians on both sides of the aisle screaming for accountability within our ranks, when do we start holding them accountable? You want our money? You want our endoresment? You want our votes? Then prove yourself. Otherwise our association is part of the problem, not part of the solution, and we will be weaker for it.
NEA members will be active regardless. If NEA endorses Clinton or any other candidate without an adequate process that actively involves and engages their membership, and without clear answers to the vital questions we have regarding the Department of Education and Democratic party support of corporate reform, then teacher activism will take place outside of the NEA. That will leave the organization weakened, and make the endorsement far less powerful than it could be. An endorsement that is the process of real member participation will then unleash that energy into a grassroots campaign in support of the chosen candidate. A top down endorsement will yield some millions of member dollars, and some union leaders on the podium for photos, but much less in terms of on the ground support. (emphasis mine)
Teachers are tired of having their voices silenced and ignored. We have been silenced and ignored by political leaders, corporate leaders, virtually every big name in the last fifteen years of education reformy fiasco. To ask us to accept the same from our own national union is just too much. The democratic process is under attack in our country; we do not want to see it under attack within our own union.
It is a mistake on the larger scale as well. The early endorsement is just another attempt to circumvent the democratic process, to say, "Well, it looks like the voters at large might make a choice we don't like, so we are going to take steps to keep that from happening. We can't just be letting the Democratic Party make these choices based on the will of the voter. We need to tip the scale." This does not say, "We have faith in the American voters." It says, "The American voters are boobs, and we need to push them where we want them."
It won't work. The howls from NEA members will be loud and palpable, and the whole mess will feed the narrative that NEA is NOT the voice of three million teachers, but a group of political operatives who try to harness those voices for their own purposes.
Democracy is under attack. The voices of ordinary citizens are being ignored and silenced. NEA must not become one more big organization saying, "Some peoples' voices just don't matter." (emphasis mine)
If you agree, and you are a member of an NEA state affiliate, consider changing your social media avatar to the meme above. Then, contact your state affiliate's elected leaders and tell them you do not support this early endorsement; tweet Lily at @Lily_NEA and @NEAToday; share on Facebook and post on the NEA Facebook page; and engage your fellow members to join the chorus of voices rising up to stop this.
Special note
Last week the NJEA PAC Committee took a position of 'no endorsement at this time'. Our members felt there was not a strong enough case for an early endorsement because Clinton has not come out strong against the corporate takeover of public education. Since NJEA is one of the top PAC fundraisers in the NEA, our vote will carry more weight at that meeting next week.
Holy moly! Just when I thought ed 'reform' in the Garden State couldn't get any weirder, all this happened in the past seven days. So, here's your one-stop shop for all the ed 'reform' news that's fit to print, whether it makes sense or not:
*5/23 Thousands of Newark students defied Superintendent Cami Anderson's threats of consequences and walk out of classes to protest her regime and demand return of local control and fair funding of their public schools. Sounds like that 'reform' plan of hers is going swimmingly well!
*5/25 Newark's Central High School Principal, Sharnee Brown, risks her job by starting a petition on MoveOn.org calling for an end to the practices of Anderson's signature 'One Newark' plan that discriminate against the district's special education students.
5/28Gov. Christie says the Common Core State Standards aren't working, and vows to have parents and teachers involved in writing new ones. Wait, what?
5/29 Before the ink is dry on Christie's CCSS speech, the Star Ledger posts a pro Common Core piece by the Center for American Progress's Daniella Gibbs Leger that, once again, touts the magical ability of education 'reform' to fix the devastating effects of income inequality, unemployment, underemployment, generational poverty and racial segregation.
* Special thanks to Bob Braun, whose superior coverage of all the 'reformy' goings-on in Newark is a must-read.
Whew! That's a whole lotta crazy packed into six days! And the education community wasted no time in responding:
5/28Jersey Jazzman eviscerates Christie for his "screaming hypocrisy"
5/28Peter Greene's response to Christie: "Big frickin' deal"
5/28NJEA President Wendell Steinhauer: “If the governor is genuinely interested in new standards, the state must abandon the PARCC fiasco, which is taking a terrible toll on the quality of instruction and student learning in New Jersey,”
5/29Peter Greene's response to Daniella Gibbs Leger: "I think cigarette companies do a better job of making a case for their [product]"
5/29Julie Borst: "We all deserve to understand, in the most transparent way, what [the CCSS] has cost us."
As for me? Well, there's not much more I can say about Christie and the Common Core that hasn't already been said. But, I take great umbrage with the propaganda the Star Ledger continually passes off as professional journalism. "But Marie", you say, "why bother? They aren't going to change their tune. Don't waste your time." But when the state's largest newspaper continues to spew illogical garbage like this...
But here's what this issue boils down to. If you're interested in racial equality, you have to go for the PARCC, imperfect as it may be. Why? Because it's the only game in town — and if we're going to have any hope of closing the achievement gap between poor, minority kids and their wealthier peers, we need this data to do it. (emphasis mine)
("The only game in town", oh right, because adequate school funding, housing, food, medical care, personal financial stability, job opportunities and safe neighborhoods would never, ever solve that problem. Only the bogus data from a deeply flawed test will.) ... When they insult the general public with ignorant statements like this...
The opt-out movement is sabotaging the data. Liberal-minded people who would normally be very concerned with helping underachieving kids are taking an anti-testing position that actually hurts those kids. In that respect — and in the degree of paranoia involved — it's similar to the anti-vaccination movement. And it may be just as damaging.
(Hmmm... "anti-vaccination movement"... where have I read that before? Oh yes, here. But at least they admit, albeit in a backhanded way, that Conservative-minded people really have no concern with helping underachieving kids.) ... I fall back on the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who must be rolling in his grave over what is happening to public education in Newark and other mostly minority cities around the country:
"In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
Now, I don't consider anyone an enemy, but I will not sit back quietly when people and institutions that hold great sway and influence over large swaths of the general populace refuse to do their homework and, for whatever reason, disseminate information that is factually incorrect. I've taken a lot of shots at the Star Ledger and Tom Moran, and some may have been too snarky, but sometimes I feel like I'm living in an episode of the Twilight Zone. I can't imagine how the people of Newark feel. When parents and students who want an excellent education resoundingly reject the carpetbaggers who swoop in to 'save' them in part by silencing their voices and excluding them from the process, I can't sit idly by. None of us should. When the state's largest newspaper refuses to listen to the citizens of the state's largest city, others have an obligation to do so. We all must continue to call out those who, for whatever reason, simply will not see what's happening before their very eyes. If not, we are part of the problem. As for the rest of this week's events, time will tell how much—if any—of a seismic shift this all will bring. Mountains aren't moved in a day, but sometimes, when too much pressure builds up, this happens:
