Op-Ed: “Looking Backwards: What You Do When Looking Forward or Inward is too Hard”

I think you’ve got to at least take a second and pause when the leading figure of a lobby or movement is a historian.  Diane Ravitch- an educational historian- is the Michelle Rhee of the teachers unions’ efforts to resist what they scornfully refer to as “reform.” Last week she made an appearance- alongside two of her colleagues- at Princeton University’s conference on “Teachers’ Unions and the Future of the Teaching Profession.”  The event caused millions of marginalized Americans to turn over in the graves they landed in 7 years prematurely because of a broken education system.

Between the three speakers- Ravitch; Marjorie Murphy, Professor of History at Swarthmore College; Pedro Noguera, Professor of Education at New York University- there was a whole lot of consensus, which is especially impressive considering how inconsistent so much of the message was.  They seemed to reject the notion that there was all that much wrong with education in the United States, but certainly there was enough of a problem that they could assert these “reformers” were failing at addressing it adequately, without any serious epistemological breakdown.

The real loser of the event, however, was Princeton University, which allowed itself to play host to this union rally all the while parading it as an “academic conference.”  The event was composed of two panels.  The first, as I have suggested, was a uniform assault on any pushback the teachers’ unions have received in recent years.  There was time enough for one softball question—though, it’s unlikely more questions from the audience would have been all that effective, as the crowd was standing-room-only due to the hordes of New Jersey Education Association members that had filled the auditorium.  It wasn’t until the second panel- which occurred over an hour and a half after the completion of the first, when the crowd had thinned considerably- that we heard from those who suggested we might serve children better by addressing the issues and not creating straw-men opponents simply there for a good laugh—in other words, we should move beyond the blame game.  Too bad Diane couldn’t stick around to watch.

It wasn’t more than a month or two ago that Princeton hosted a panel, moderated by President Tilghman, where educational leaders (from teachers to Chancellors) had offered solutions and hope for the problems they faced in education on a daily basis.  So here was that same University- the same one that had heard about schools doing more with less, about poor and marginalized communities finally having publicly funded schools serving their needs- providing a platform for those who seemed to believe that even if there is a problem, they certainly know who isn’t to blame.  Never mind the absurdity of their claims; the unquestioned format in which it was delivered was an embarrassment for an institution of “higher education.”

Joel Klein, the former head of NYC Schools, has said that we are approaching education exactly backwards if we think it cannot be fixed without solving problems of poverty in this country first; in fact, it is not until education is mended that we will ever see real economic gains for all communities.  This notion was woefully absent among the three voices that, unchallenged, championed teachers’ unions at the conference.  Murphey, the Swarthmore Professor (and another historian), assured us that we could have a bunch of Swarthmore High Schools throughout the country, and that we “could hold a lottery, and people would cry when they didn’t get in.”  (This mocking of the countless images of minority parents sobbing over the lost potential of their children’s futures when they don’t get into high performing charter schools, was met with roaring laughter from the audience).  But she assured us that we would still be left with irrevocably “unmotivated” students that- no matter the will or efficacy of the teacher- were simply not built to learn.  And in case we had any doubts, she assured us this was true even in her Swarthmore experience where “unmotivated students are more often than not the poorer ones, the students of color… the ones that won the lottery.”  And because no one was ever allowed to ask, I guess we’ll never know how Ms. Murphey explains where this inherent lack of motivation comes from, or how we are able to dispel of it so systemically in schools of marginalized communities throughout the country.

On the subject of reform and socioeconomic status, the combined comments of the panelists painted an interesting picture about exactly what the problem is and who has the responsibility and power to rectify it; more accurately: about what the problem is not, who absolutely should not be held responsible for it, and who does not have any business attempting to solve it.  To Ravitch, you have to be a card-carrying member of the union to even have the moral and cognitive aptitude to wade into the discussion in the first place.  Even when involved in education you are too “inexperienced” right up until the moment you have put a few years into teaching in inner-city schools… then you are just another one of those “graduates of ivy league colleges and elite prep schools” she distrusts so deeply.

The most reasonable panelist, Noguera, at least began to acknowledge the harm of poor teachers, and unions’ advocacy on their behalf.  He said, for example, “when you allow poor teachers to remain, you undermine high performing teachers—and certainly the students” (Ravitch has since taken issue with the phrase “high performing teacher” as she finds it “rude and divisive“).   Even a few of his claims, however, suggested unsettling implications when carried out to their logical conclusions.  “The worst teachers,” he rightfully claimed, “are disproportionately teaching poor students.  And unions are implicated.”  He continued, “But so are parents of the wealthy students who simply wont allow their kids to be taught by those teachers.”

Whoa.  Stop for a second.

So parents who demand good teachers are responsible for bad teachers being placed in poor students’ classrooms?  Are we sure we don’t want to just, say, get rid of the bad teachers altogether?  Talk about the blame game.  And if you take these comments in context of Ravitch’s deep skepticism about, well, anyone remotely involved in education reform- let alone wealthy people, God forbid- I guess the solution is to just send your kids to learn from the bad teachers and keep your mouth shut.  That’ll show ‘em.

Diane Ravitch- the conference’s keynote speaker- began her presentation in-field: on the history of teachers’ unions.  She reminded us of the important role unions served when it was anathema to the American conception of capitalism and independence to legislate against terminations, even if they were made based upon such things as religion or race.  We are not past the days when all workplace injustices have been rectified by laws or regulatory agencies.  In 29 states, for example, an individual can be legally fired from any job- including teaching- solely because of his/her sexual orientation.  We are, however, beyond the days where the notion of developing legal protections from discrimination in the workplace is simply unfathomable.  Job security ought to be derived from yielding excellent results, and discrimination ought to be fought as a matter of law—not merely as part of a labor-monopoly contract negotiation.  Teachers’ unions have a long and interesting history—but when, today, they rely so heavily upon that history and casting blame and dispersion onto every other facet of the education system, we should at least take a second and pause: perhaps it’s because they aren’t finding much good material in their present.

-

Andrew Blumenfeld ’13

(The views in this piece do not necessarily represent the views of Students for Education Reform as a whole organization)