.jpg)
Colorado State Senator Mike Johnston was asked to speak at the Harvard Graduate School of Education's convocation this year.Nearly 150 students and alumni have now signed a statement of protest asking the HGSE to rescind the invite.
You can read the statement here.
Digging into this protest provides a glimpse of just how messy the debate on education is.
Here's how the statement of protest begins its objection to Sen. Johnston.
As a state senator in Colorado, Sen. Johnston has pushed through education reforms that we believe work against educational justice for Coloradoan students, teachers, school leaders, and communities. Sen. Johnston often claims to have been inspired by Dr. King and other civil rights leaders. However, we believe his vision and policies have been informed far more by conservative economists like Eric Hanushek, who promote policies where teachers are churned in and out of the profession based primarily on test score production.I like this debate because it demonstrates opposing sides that want the same outcome but believe in strikingly different paths.
I seek out examples of this kind of debate for classroom discussions because they are the kinds of debates my students don't think of. My students are very good at naming debates where the opposing sides want different outcomes: Abortion, nuclear power, two-state solution, cap and trade, and the list goes on.
Those are all interesting debates, but this education debate asks students to think beyond zero-sum games. Both sides want a more effective education system for the US. So, then what's the debate about?
And we're off! It's about testing, students, teachers, poverty, corporate interests, the size of government, regulation, the role of parents... and now we are so much closer to grasping the scope of conflict in public discourse.
So, I like the debate.
The protest? I'm a little less certain about that.
Sen. Johnston is HGSE alumni. He has a successful career. He has gained a position of influence and made decisions on policy.
There are going to be plenty of people who disagree with the decisions the Senator made. I am actually one of those people.
But it seems a shame to turn away successful alumni because their politics don't align with your own.
Taken to its logical extreme, this kind of protest would lead to convocations inviting only apolitical speakers. And in a field like education, I'm not sure what an apolitical speaker even looks like.
6 comments:
I have to respectfully disagree with your statement, "Both sides want a more effective education system for the US." The voucher/charter school/scores-accounatbility side has always been informed by a business ideology. It's goals have been twofold: 1) erode and destroy the influence of unions in public education, then 2)turn public education into a a for-profit venture so that private entities can take control and make some money. This goes back to the early 90's at least, and I've been following since nearly the beginning. At first they didn't hide this goal, then they changed their language to "school choice," when that failed they turned to "accountability," and then now to "reform." But don't kid yourself, the main people behind the voucher movement are the same people who brought you NCLB and now bring you charter schools. Any public official that advocates this needs to run our of office, because they don't understand the necessity of true free and public education to a well functioning democracy (and we're not, I know...that's a whole other issue). They couch their language like they care, but they don't--just follow the money trail.
^^typos...ugh, sorry!
Rob, you and I are on the same side in this debate, which means your comment puts me into the awkward position of having to defend the people I disagree with.
The "school choice," "accountability," and "reform" people really believe that economic incentives are the best way to improve education. Most of them do at least. They really think their methods will improve schools.
You and I think they are wrong, but I won't demonize them the way you have.
Think of the worst ways their side depicts us, their opposition: union apologists, defenders of a failing status quo, socialists, and the list goes on.
That kind of debate gets no where.
Like it or not, the opposition has a seat at the table, and they're not going away. So I want to listen closely enough to show them exactly how wrong they are.
*grumble* When someone demonizes my job, tries to undermine what is one of the few remaining democratic institutions we have left, and seeks to do for no more than a profit margin...yeah, I have a tough time seeing what they do as "caring." I honestly don't believe they do, they want cogs, workers, Epsilons and Deltas...
I know, I'm probably not being fair to all those who propose such "fixes," but I really have a tough time separating the personal from the debate in this.
I am disgusted by the way "school choice," "accountability," and "reform" people treat teachers, so... yeah, it is personal at some level.
But I still like the debate itself.
Their view argues that the problem is at the local level, while teachers and teacher advocates argue that the one-size-fits most approach of the reformers is the problem.
That is a fun debate to teach.
Now, if we get into the details, it is kind of ironic that the reformers, who are often conservative, "small government" folks, are arguing that more centralized control is what we need in education.
Post a Comment