So, I have been working this blog as if I have a union contract. I resolve to be better, and I have a few topics I want to address, and really want to hear from others about. Here we go...
Rethinking Schools recently published an article about Teach For America. Sidebar, I directly asked a TFA staff member why they always capitalize the "For" in TFA considering that doesn't happen in other circumstances, and they were strident that the "For" needs to be capitalized. There was no specific reasoning behind it, but nevertheless it should be capitalized. Back to the topic at hand. The article has been getting a lot of play. I got it from three different people, and another blogger wrote a very extensive post about it at the Education Policy Blog. Incidently, that blog, from what I have read thus far, is vastly superior to mine, so check it out. The blogger quotes a ton of verbiage from the Rethinking Schools article, so a lot of it is redundant, but the comments were pretty interesting.
I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THE ARTICLE AND REACT TO IT HERE. I'm very interested in other people's response to the article, and I will reserve my own opinion until I hear from some of you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posting on behalf of a.d.
ReplyDeleteI must confess Jamie, when I first read Barbara Miner's piece, I likened it to the Obama birther movement and "9/11 was in inside job" conspiracy theorists. I called Miner a hack. I've had a few weeks to reflect on it and I carefully considered the Ed Policy Blog's take. I've come to realize
that my views have not changed one bit.
Miner's piece is such an incredible hack job that Frank Luntz would be put to shame. For the sake of brevity, I will only mention a couple of examples. First, Miner makes a Glenn Beckian syllogism. Her major and
minor premises: "Wachovia screwed over minorities by selling them junk mortgages. Wachovia supports TFA." Hmm… what could she possibly be getting at? Does it matter that Wachovia supported TFA well before the mortgage exploitation frenzy? Does it matter that Wachovia also supports the fiercely non-partisan and globally lauded Red Cross? The inconvenient truth is that corporate directors usually don't causally connect their
business practices and their tax-exempt charitable donations. In fact, by letting customers choose a charity themselves, corporate management has relinquished some of that control. Alvin Ailey brought an African American perspective to the New York art society and legitimized African American
contributions to dance. He also received generous (and essential) patronage from Philip Morris. As a consequence, Ailey wasn't part of the big tobacco machine. He wasn't trying to give us cancer--he was trying to
give us dance.
continued post from a.d.
ReplyDelete"The Mysterious LEE" is where Miner really shows her hack job prowess. I'll paraphrase the foundation she lays. Miner asserts the mainstream media are falling over themselves to love TFA, whereas Darling-Hammond criticized TFA and the media hates on her at every turn. When she was rumored as a potential Secretary of Education, she was sandbagged and kicked to the curb with the car still moving. Somehow--I'm still trying to
figure it out myself--this discussion segues into LEE. (Digression: Darling-Hammond's charter school was shut down by the State of California for underperformance, which seemed like a long time coming. This would be quite embarrassing for a Sec. of Ed. I don't think this is a fair way to evaluate her ualifications but for better or worse, being a Secretary is innately political. And in politics, the appearance of credibility is
everything. If she were in office today, the Obama administration would be paying dearly.) As a member of LEE, I can tell you that what Lamb said about LEE is 100% true: they're strictly non-partisan and more interested
in simply assisting alum who want to run for office. I can empathize with Miner, this seems too good to be true. But it is true. Miner says it doesn't make sense but it makes sense to me: TFA isn't trying to create a
political party. Rather than dictate policy positions from the top down, the individuals running for office are making their minds up for themselves. Most members, I would guess, have very strong opinions and policy positions. Up close, this may appear chaotic but if one takes a step back, it's clear that what unifies everyone is a commitment to
education reform, more than your run-of-the-mill politician. I think this level of abstraction is what really worries Miner and even though I disagree, I recognize the merits of her argument. It's just too bad she
had to immerse it in so much shit.
As an aside, my favorite part of the Ed Policy Blog piece was "Barbara Miner is a very effective writer. And an effective writer best skewers a target using that target's own words." His/her use of "effective" was poor word choice. Whether Miner is an effective writer remains to be seen but the most unscrupulous political hacks would agree that "skewering" a
political foe by using her words against her is highly effective, especially when those words are taken out of context (see Fox News). It actually doesn't take much skill. In fact, it is often used as a convenient proxy for rational arguments. If the gun ain't smoking, photoshop that mug.
I actually think the Miner article brings up some of my biggest concerns. Zinn's quote really strikes me: “The idea of bringing in ‘great’ people, ‘important’ people, is counter to the idea of a democratic education, . . . And all the insistence on not taking policy stands, not having an ‘ideology,’ is simply naïve. Not taking policy stands is itself an ideology, and an ideology which reinforces the status quo in education and in society.” As does this bit from the end: "that the organization is part of a global network promoting ideologies of privatization, individualism, and elitism; that TFA rests on the dubious supposition that elite graduates of elite colleges are inherently better teachers than people from local or regional schools who come from the communities where they teach . . ."
ReplyDeleteBut, I don't think TFA really has some sort of nefarious, intentionally hidden agenda. I do think that the people who stay involved in the organization tend to have and promote certain perspectives about education reform that are often anti-union, pro-entrepreneurial, etc. I think those are also the alumni that continue to be cited by TFA as superstars and clearly that says something about the group think of the organization and its ideals. I think ideally the 'theory of change' would play out with a more nuanced dialogue between those TFA superstar folks and the perspectives of other alumni. I guess in that sense I do feel like the media attention that TFA, including those TFA likes to feature as successful alumni, gets is disproportionate. Hmmmm . . .
I do agree with Andy's statements about TFA being non-partisan and thinking that they want alumni to make decisions for themselves as they move forward in their careers and take political action. But I can't deny that there isn't a feeling that if you want to stay in the in-crowd, you gotta be careful what you say. I know I feel it when I criticize TFA (went to a TFA alumni gathering last night and I felt like I was being watched to see how 'good' of an alumni I was--but that's another story entirely). I also disagree with Miner that that 'theory of change' is so unfathomable, I really do think TFA staff, corps members, and alumni believe in it (I do) but I do think that it plays out in a more ideologically constrained way than TFA would like to admit.
ReplyDeleteTooooo much to say. Must go to work. Wish I was meeting you all for happy hour this afternoon to talk more about this!