There's a strange dynamic going on inside the online education reform debate in which the well-funded reformers play the role of wimpy David and the scrappy traditional educators are Goliath. But the mismatch could change quickly in the new year, and if it does things will get noisier but also -- I hope -- a little more interesting.
I don’t know if I agree with his labeling the reformers as David considering the large amounts of money that they bring to the table and the influence that they have had on forming the debate around choice and charters, LIFO, teacher evaluation, and unions. He contends that the reform critics have the edge in this arena because there are many out there sharing their message and they appear to be able to coordinate a response when necessary. From my point of view in the larger picture the reformers appear to me to be in the position of Goliath not David, but in this one area he may be right.
Amy shared with me this response at Living in Dialogue to Russo’s post from one of the reform critics he identified, teacher Anthony Cody. In it Cody shares his view of the battle using the same view point that I find difficult to move from.
As I tried to point out yesterday, the online debate is rather meaningless if the real decisions about our schools continue to be made based on misinformation, bribery and political gamesmanship. I believe the online debate has been deliberately ignored by the corporate reform sector, as they see it as a battle they can well afford to lose, given the access to real power their funds buy them.
I’m wondering what it will do to the debate if, as Russo suggests , things could get noisier if the reformers are successful in coordinating their message through online vehicles. For whatever reason I seem to have more reform-minded sites in my RSS feed than “scrappy traditional educator” sites as Russo calls them. I also tend to believe that people in government at the state and federal levels are also being informed by these same individuals and organizations and that the teacher voice is losing influence. I don’t know what Russo means when he hopes that it gets a little more interesting. I would settle for a little more stability and collaboration with less influence from those sectors trying to tell us how to do the work, or at least an equal amount of financial support from those same individuals and foundations so that we can provide them with a model of system success that can be replicated.
2 comments:
There are some real problems with Russo's David and Goliath analogy. The purpose of the original story of David and Goliath was to show David's identity as the true king of Israel. Post-Classical Jewish traditions stressed Goliath's status as the representative of paganism, in contrast to David, the champion of the God of Israel. Christian tradition gave him a distinctively Christian twist, seeing in David's battle with Goliath the victory of God's King over the enemies of God's helpless people as a prefiguring of Jesus' victory over sin on the Cross and the Church's ongoing struggle against Satan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath)
So, well-funded reformers' are David and 'scrappy traditional educators' are Goliath? The analogy fails because David bravely accepts the challenge to fight Goliath and promptly dispatches him and cuts off his head. Nowhere in the story is David 'wimpy', as Russo alludes. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a braver character than David. So why would Russo possibly utilize this analogy?
Most 'online debates', whatever their topic, seem to generate soundbite thinking using the most base elements of language. Invoking the story of David and Goliath seems an attempt to illicit a response by demonizing educators. This toxic approach to 'debate' never results in any real reform, but it sure does get your website a lot of hits (and subsequently more money). It's ironic that the Russo post Amy mentions refers to bribery and the like. It appears to me that Russo seems to be trying to generate money as a writer, not any education reform.
Or maybe Russo, with friends in the Gates Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, and the National Commission on Entrepreneurship, among others, sees himself as the voice of God and destined to make things 'noisier'. I don't know. Kind of reminds me of the clear thinking of Glenn Beck. lol
What I do know is that what reformers need is leadership, not some hope for viral influence using the internet to achieve change. Russo's post about comments and Twitter responses as a coordinated 'battle' between David and Goliath is absurd. Assembling a convincing collection of evidence and spreading the word is a lot tougher than generating $$$ from a 'debate' website.
Let us not choose our leaders from the media. Freelance writers, especially ones who cannot even propose a valid analogy like Alexander Russo, should not be driving any debate about education. Like so many others in the media, he is but a puppet for others with their own agendas, which often have very little to do with supporting public education.
We should ask ourselves, has 'reform' really made things better?
Jonathan
I agree with all points made. I would add that what these reformers truly need are facts. We see time and again studies funded by these groups get debunked by hard facts. The rally cry piece of this movement "Waiting for Superman" itself was snubbed by the Academy Awards for not being factual (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/school-turnaroundsreform/why-oscar-snubbed-superman---.html). I think there is leadership, Jonathan, but until they can find concrete, scientific evidence that their reforms will bring about positive change in our school system, their message will continue to lack strength. As educators, it should be our mission that we continue to demand these facts.
Post a Comment