The good vs. the bad . . .

I’ve been holding a blog post sent to me by Amy Adams for about a week as I was focused on other things and also because of what it pushed me to think about. Amy is TEA’s chief negotiator and has been for many years. Over this time and even before that we have had numerous conversations about our work and her advocacy for teachers. Though we don’t always agree on an issue, we share our thinking, seek to find common ground, and I believe leave with mutual respect for the roles that we play and for our concern with the future of public education.


The post that she shared with me is by David Sirota and comes from SALON. It is titled, The bait and switch of school “reform” and is a lengthy blog post. In it, Sirota takes on the positions espoused by the “reformers”, in this case beginning with Steven Brill’s new book, Class Warfare. I haven’t read the book, but I have read reviews in blog posts. Brill would be viewed as one in the “reformer” camp pushing for charters, rigorous teacher evaluation models that use student achievement data, common core, common assessments . . .

Sirota sees Brill and others as contributing to a simplistic view of the education issue today with greedy teachers on one side and “reformers” including very wealthy corporations and foundations working for the kids on the other side.

The dominant narrative, in other words, explains the fight for the future of education as a battle between the evil forces of myopic selfishness (teachers) and the altruistic benevolence of noblesse oblige (Wall Street). Such subjective framing has resulted in reporters, pundits and politicians typically casting the "reformers'" arguments as free of self-interest, and therefore more objective and credible than teachers' counterarguments.


The truth, of course, is that for all the denialist agitprop to the contrary, corporate education "reformers" are motivated by self-interest, too.

Sirota identifies three of those areas of self-interest that I share below. He makes some interesting arguments that I will let you read by going to the post.

Self-Interest 1: Pure Profit

Self-Interest 2: Changing the Subject From Poverty to Inequality

Self-Interest 3: New Front in the War on Unions

I believe that the following excerpt from the post captures the essence of Sirota’s feelings on the issue of profit.

Corporate education "reformers'" self-interest, by contrast, means advocating for policies that help private corporations profit off of public schools, diverting public attention from an anti-poverty economic agenda, and busting unions that prevent total oligarchical control of America's political system. In short, it's about the profit, stupid.


Neither side's self-interest is perfectly aligned with the goal of bettering our education system. But one side is clearly far more aligned with that goal than the other.

I find myself agreeing with the premise that education writers and “reformers” have been successful at creating a simplistic view of our current reality in public education with teachers and unions on one side and “reformers” and rich individuals and foundations on the other. I would add, however, that included in the “reformer” camp would be governors and other state leaders pushing to weaken union influence and the Obama administration embracing many of the same reform strategies being pushed by these individuals and groups. They are not pushing reform for a personal or corporate profit.

I also don’t agree that the primary motivation of corporate “reformers”, education writers, and foundations is about profit. Certainly, those from the corporate world are concerned with profit and that there is money to be made as public education continues to be pushed towards necessary reforms. But, I also believe that there is a genuine concern in the level of knowledge and skills possessed by our high school graduates and the impact that this has on the future work force. Perhaps I just want to have a positive presupposition because of all the conflict, but I struggle to see profit as the primary motivation for the majority of those in the “reformer” camp.

Putting the blame on teachers and teacher unions frankly makes me mad. Teachers care and work hard to support young people and unions were introduced at a time when changes and advocacy were needed. Of course, my frame of reference is from our system and the manner in which we approach our work. If I were in Tacoma right now facing a strike over a transfer policy needing to change I would think differently. But, it is possible to form productive partnerships with teacher associations led by officers who balance advocacy with a focus on the needs of young people in our schools.

Once again, reading this post is upsetting when I think of the wasted energy devoted to this “fight” and to the influence people outside our profession have through control of millions of dollars given to anyone willing to agree with their positions. This would include schools and school systems and those in elected positions seeking support for reelection.

Though not labeled as such, I consider our school system and myself as reformers. We learn from the research and are focused on success for all students. We use nontraditional delivery models and see the need for including online and blended learning opportunities. We acknowledge the need for change and are open to influence by those that have experienced success. We are one of those systems trying hard and getting positive results. I believe that our culture and the relations that we have with both bargaining units contributes to our success. A foundation might want to study us as a possible “reform strategy”, it might go further than weakening the union, or all kids moving to charters. Oh well, I can at least dream.

Thanks, Amy for sharing this. Much of what I read in the blogs I follow gives me the other side, it is important to hear from teachers and teacher unions. I think much of our problem is because of all the voices out there on both sides. There is far too much “interpersonal mush” controlling our experiences and behavior.