The Echo

Education reform is a funny thing - you see, all FORMERS, the mainstream and the opposition, are committed to reforming education. We all see the need to improve student achievement.  Neither supports the status quo of student failure.

At C&E 1st, I've taken the position that mainstream reformers are Ed-deformers and the opposition is committed to real education reform. Ed-deformers support a status quo of unproven, unsuccessful litany of education reform policies.  They pick-up and triumph the reform du jour, such as RTTT.  They are frequently high-powered, well-positioned business men and politicians who benefit substantially through income or election in the implementation of reform practices that lack evidence, but sound damn good!

The Opposition to Deform, however, is committed to reform done in a thoughtful, planned, manner using methodologies that actually have empirical evidence behind them.  They are not scape-goaters like the deformers who have demonized teachers. The Opposition is committed to holistic reforms that address a system in its entirety, not a small subset. We seek long term, sustainable outcomes derived from wholesale change, not a quickie turnaround that will service the immediate needs of the political party at hand. The Opposition is committed to children.  Deformers are committed to politics, specifically those politics that further their own careers.

In the media, ed-deformers have painted the picture of opposition as a supporter of a status quo of failure who anti-reformist.  In fact, the status quo I oppose is the constant spin of reform done fast and furious with little fidelity and ignorance of results.  The status quo is insistence that their methods will work when all early warnings indicate that something is amiss.  And there were and continue to be early indicators in Delaware.

In Delaware, the fact that DOE convened meetings to create an MOU to support its RTTT grant application and specifically excluded school board members and parents is an early indicator.  DOE further presented that MOU to school boards with a very short window of time to review it and a message:  It's all going to be regulated, so sign the MOU and get help with funding or don't sign and fund it yourself locally. And what well-respecting school board would say no to money when their state has been thrust into a recession? States around the nation followed their queue and codified, legislated, and regulated RTTT reforms.  Some never won RTTT monies and have been left on their own to sort it out.  The state misrepresented Delaware to the feds, hyping the 100% buy-in.  Coercion is not synonymous with buy-in. It is an early indicator. While this is now water under the bridge - boards have no choice but to support the reform models - this was also an indicator of something more insidious: an assault on local control that played out very publicly in the last couple weeks.

On one side was Christina, the largest district in the state. The other, the Governor, the Sec. of Ed, and their business round table friends.  Remember, what we all agree on is that our schools need drastic improvement; where we differ is in the methodology of reform.  If we believe that students are in the heart of every party, then we are all altruistic in our endeavours (though the propagandizing via the News Journal leaves me many doubts about the true intentions of mainstream deformers.) 

Because the RTTT reforms are regulated, deform opposition has little recourse.  Despite seeing the writing on the blackboard that 8-10 years down the line, even if initial data is positive, that these reforms are highly unlikely to be successful, the fight is not to rebuke the reforms and buck the mainstreamers. The best course of action for any person who opposes the RTTT reforms is to work mightily to ensure fidelity to the reform plans. This is what Christina's board attempted to do when they voted to retain and retrain their teachers.  The board identified an area that was not implemented with fidelity and hoped to restore it. The state responded with hostility and the board was forced to reverse its vote in order to continue its commitment to the reform plans.   The state was not looking for compromise, only submission. This is another early indicator.

I will likely be long gone from the political sphere when the true results of RTTT becomes known, but my children will be students at Glasgow and they will be living the legacy of RTTT.  As a parent in this situation, I desperately want these reforms to work, the future of 17,000 students depends on it and my children are among them.  As a policy-maker, I am deeply concerned that without fidelity, with the absence of best practices, and the lack of pause button for reflection during the reform process, that we have a charted a course that transforms Delaware's students from students to lab rats.

Are we so desperate to be cutting-edge leaders that we buck empirical, peer-reviewed evidence? Do we ignore the reality of Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. because we think we can do it better?  Must we ignore the early indicators and proceed with fast implementation?  Mainstreamers/Deformers say we can't wait, the urgency is too great.  But, we can't afford failure either. The opposition only continues to ask, Can we do this better, smarter, and more comprehensively? Do we invest where there is a likelihood of success, in teachers? in early education? in tackling a funding formula that hurts kids and ties districts' hands?  

The NJ ended their editorial with these statements: "It is more than childish to play the role of being critical just because my point of view was rejected. The point is that now is the time to begin going forward."

To this I respond: The CBOE only ever wanted to continue forward with decisions founded in fact not point of view. The facts are the facts.  Reviewing, Printing, Understanding the fact is NOT childish (although my graphic art above may be.) And isn't it humorous that the editorial board condemns those whose views are differ from theirs?  No, It's not.

Enjoy the art. Appreciate it for what it is - Satire.

Satire is primarily a literary genre or form, although in practice it can also be found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.