NPR Ed reached out to education leaders from across the country and found that "some education leaders are rushing to embrace the newly frank conversation about the racial impact of education reforms. Others are caught awkwardly in the middle. And some -- especially conservative -- reformers feel alienated." NPR's Anya Kamenetz cited one of those conservative reformers, Rick Hess, who observes, "'We're watching the old NCLB/Race to the Top coalition come apart, and we'll see what will come out the other side.'"
But it isn't just racial divisions that are tearing apart the contemporary school improvement efforts of the last generation. Educators of all races, from various ideologies, and committed to very different school policies are also split over fundamental differences as to how we in a democracy work with each other. The unraveling of the corporate reform coalition is due, in large part, because of the ways they treat people who disagree with them.
A National Press Club panel discussion clarified the positions of today's three dominant schools of education policy. Shavar Jeffries of the Democrats for Education Reform embodies the neoliberal wing of the corporate reform movement. Andrew Smarick, from Bellwhether Education Partners, displays the new face of their former partners, conservative reformers. The panel also included an open and welcoming face of teacher-led school improvement, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, the president of the National Education Association.
The Education Writers Association's Caroline Hendrie started the discussion with a mention of the breakup of the reform coalition. As Smarick explains, liberal reformers pushed top-down technocratic approaches that are now being rejected, while conservatives pledge fidelity to "the Market." Of course, liberals wouldn't trust this sort of unfettered competition in any other public sector and, I would think, even neoliberals would reject the granting of such unchecked power to corporate interests. It certainly isn't a viable path to racial justice.
Corporate reformers, however, have enthusiastically supported unfair competition where test-driven micromanaging is imposed on traditional public schools as they empowered charters to "cream" the easier-to-teach students and to promote segregation, behaviorist pedagogies and discipline, in order to defeat neighborhood schools. (The pedagogies also help charters to push out students who make it more difficult to raise test scores.) Their goal was defeating teachers unions and others who disagreed with their agenda. To do so, corporate reformers dismissed a generation of the poorest children of color as collateral damage in the fight against their adult opponents.
The NEA's Eskelsen Garcia best explains how the test-driven, competition-driven reform alliance held together for nearly a generation. In the 1980s, conservatives would demand "Results!" Liberals fought for "Equality." The contemporary reform movement took the shortcut of demanding "Equal Results!"
In other words, reformers chose to pretend that equal results could be produced on the cheap, without tackling the inequality which defeats so many of the highest-poverty schools. The stress of high stakes testing would somehow overcome the stress of poverty which undermines educational success. The segregation resulting from choice would supposedly undo the damage done by the history of segregation.
It never made sense to expect equal results to come from testing and competition unless educational dysfunction was due to identifiable villains, such as teachers who offered "Excuses!" and failed to demand "High Expectations!" Presumably, reformers believed that complex systems across the entire, diverse nation were being derailed by "bad teachers," protected by bad unions. Output-driven accountability would force educators to do what the Great Society failed to accomplish and scale up the ladder out of poverty and of racism.
Or should I say that neoliberals chose to believe such a fantasy? Conservatives merely needed to claim to believe that they were committed to the "civil rights revolution" of the 21st century. Since data-driven accountability would "deputize" teachers as the agents for ending poverty, conservatives would be able to commit to their true love, cutting the social safety net and shrinking "Big Government."
Top-down reformers ignored the predictable consequences of their unflinching focus on equal "outcomes." High stakes testing would inevitably do more than create the metrics necessary for holding teachers accountable. Test scores would become the ammunition used in the fight for survival between charters and neighborhood schools. The curriculum would be narrowed as systems demanded a complete focus on testable skills and content. And, sure enough, the worst case scenario occurred.
As should have been obvious, high-poverty neighborhood schools - that served every child who walked in their doors - were stuck in a competition that they were bound to lose. High stakes testing forced teachers to rush, skin deep, through the tested content, and parents fought back. Conservatives (rightly) blamed the Obama administration and neoliberal reformers for micromanaging. Arne Duncan (wrongly) blamed "suburban moms" for undercutting a testing regime that would, someday, supposedly produce equality and justice for poor children of color.
We shouldn't be asking why the corporate reform coalition is falling apart. The question is how did it hold together for so long. For years, the failure of test-driven, competition-driven reform has been obvious - at least to people who spend time in actual schools. The other question is whether conservatives and neoliberal reformers will dump as much vitriol on each other as they have on teachers.
Jeffries and Smarick were on their best behavior at the Press Club; they did not throw any of the temper tantrums that have characterized the mean-spirited nature of the corporate reformers' public divorce. However, several activists interviewed by NPR Ed were unable to hide their anger. On the other hand, Eskelsen Garcia exuded warmth and openness, personifying the characteristics that people want in our classrooms. At the EWA, she praised Ted Kennedy as she explained how teachers oppose NCLB, the law he sponsored. Teachers made our case to President Obama, who we twice helped to elect. Our appeals were reject, but we remained loyal to him. We and our leaders kept up the "Big Tent" battle for our students against clueless corporate reformers.
Similarly, Hillary Clinton has a record of supporting civil rights and many policies that teachers love, such as early education, but she's also been more supportive of charters than traditional public school educators would like. But, Eskelsen Garcia had a noteworthy response to the big question that all three panelists addressed. She said that Senator Clinton responded with the best possible answer to the question of why the NEA should endorse her. Clinton answered the NEA's question with more questions: she asked what teachers think; she solicited our judgments.
In other words, Senator Clinton hasn't promised teachers everything we would like, but she has promised us a seat at the table. As any educator should know, whether we are seeking better student "outcomes" or fighting for our kids' rights, victory is never assured. In the classroom, we teachers work with everyone. In politics, we will work with anyone, even those who we often disagree, as long as they will work with us. As reformers attack each other, we will keep our heads up, maintain our smiles, and our hopes, and fight the good fight for children of all races and classes.