Some weeks back I prompted a series of liberal conniption fits among the SOS upper ranks (are there any other ranks among attendees of the upcoming "People's Convention"?), when I had the gall to point out that some may be reading a conflict of interest in the SOS Board's composition. Specifically, I was referring to Steering Committee member, Bob George, Executive VP of an edu-corporation called Catapult Learning, which makes its dough in part from preying on poor and desperate schools that have been labeled failures by test designed to do just that.
The record of mass apoplexy to my post is presented below with my response to each comment that deserved one. When I talked on the phone with one Board member about what might be done to stem the likelihood that some activists may wonder why SOS has not taken a position on Common Core, even as the guy who writes their checks is selling Common Core PD to poor schools, she responded that everyone is complicit, even teachers who work for schools that use high stakes testing to sort, segregate, and punish.
When I responded that, even so, teachers do not make their living by selling products that would not exist were it not for the tests that same teachers would rather burn if they had their way, it did not seem to make an impression. And so Bob George continues to work his behind-the-scenes magic in putting together a line-up for the upcoming SOS March to Happy Hour at the Marriot Wardman, where 3 days will be devoted to creating a platform (it's the season of the Platform) that will be handed to both the DNC and the RNC this Fall. Yeah, right?
Me? I thought the platform was clear and the rationale was pretty well developed by the past 15 years or so of research and commentary by Bracey, Berliner, Ohanian, Emery, Anyon, Saltman, Substance News, Ravitch (post 2005), Giroux, Karp, etc. and by dozens of others who have published on what needs to done to end corporate interference and control of public schools. But what do I know--I thought a VP of an edu-corp on the Board of an outfit aimed to end corporate control of ED was a big deal.
Anyway, one of the first to respond to my sleazy suggestion that Bob George might be no more pure than Margaret Spellings' booking agent was Anthony Cody, who has one of the many blogs for Ed Week. So now I see that Anthony, upon his return from a pilgrimage to Gates Central in Seattle, is urging us all to tone it down, as Anthony and his readers enter a new phase of "dialogue" with Gates' lawyers and economists.
The Gates Foundation does not care what Anthony or the rest of you rabble-rousers feel or think. They are on a mission from Bill, and there is only one master who will be served. Pretending to care provides them a semblance of openness, while it provides them with a major (well, maybe not major) venue for countering anything that Anthony or you or I might post there between classes or before work. Gates has an army of Ivy-Leaguers to dissect, slice, and dice any suggestion by anyone foolish to enough to think they are interested in listening, rather than issuing communiques in the form of phony dialogue provided by a good man naive to enough to believe what they say over lattes.
The only way to end corporate control of education is through non-violent civil disobedience and relentless puncturing of the bad policy ideas and actions that the Gates and Broad and Walton non-educators float up into the edusphere. By Anthony opening his blog up to the Borg, he stands to make the "debate" about his ideas, rather than the self-serving positivized neo-eugenics of the corporate Rat Pack. Speaking truth to power is not an option when power doesn't give a shit about what you say. Action is the only way to alter the power dynamic, and the sooner the conventioneers realize that, the sooner we can begin to expand the action.
Speaking of a lot of useless talk, here is the whole thing below, based on this post that asked a simple question: Does Corporate VP Bob George's carrying the checkbook for SOS represent the appearance of conflict of interest:
The record of mass apoplexy to my post is presented below with my response to each comment that deserved one. When I talked on the phone with one Board member about what might be done to stem the likelihood that some activists may wonder why SOS has not taken a position on Common Core, even as the guy who writes their checks is selling Common Core PD to poor schools, she responded that everyone is complicit, even teachers who work for schools that use high stakes testing to sort, segregate, and punish.
When I responded that, even so, teachers do not make their living by selling products that would not exist were it not for the tests that same teachers would rather burn if they had their way, it did not seem to make an impression. And so Bob George continues to work his behind-the-scenes magic in putting together a line-up for the upcoming SOS March to Happy Hour at the Marriot Wardman, where 3 days will be devoted to creating a platform (it's the season of the Platform) that will be handed to both the DNC and the RNC this Fall. Yeah, right?
Me? I thought the platform was clear and the rationale was pretty well developed by the past 15 years or so of research and commentary by Bracey, Berliner, Ohanian, Emery, Anyon, Saltman, Substance News, Ravitch (post 2005), Giroux, Karp, etc. and by dozens of others who have published on what needs to done to end corporate interference and control of public schools. But what do I know--I thought a VP of an edu-corp on the Board of an outfit aimed to end corporate control of ED was a big deal.
Anyway, one of the first to respond to my sleazy suggestion that Bob George might be no more pure than Margaret Spellings' booking agent was Anthony Cody, who has one of the many blogs for Ed Week. So now I see that Anthony, upon his return from a pilgrimage to Gates Central in Seattle, is urging us all to tone it down, as Anthony and his readers enter a new phase of "dialogue" with Gates' lawyers and economists.
We plan a process where we will take turns posting our perspective on a given theme, followed by a response from the other party. All posts will be carried here, and at the Gates Foundation's [name eliminated to protect the innocent]. We will ask everyone to join in a lively discussion. The education reform debate has deteriorated at times—our goal is to engage in a constructive conversation, to turn down the heat, and to seek a bit more light.In a bow to post-partisan discourse, in fact, Anthony has even opened his blog up to posts from inside the inner sanctum, where the Gates war plan is spread out in hi-def virtuality across two walls (or so I imagine). I think Anthony is making a big mistake, for reasons that should be obvious to someone of Anthony's experience:
The Gates Foundation does not care what Anthony or the rest of you rabble-rousers feel or think. They are on a mission from Bill, and there is only one master who will be served. Pretending to care provides them a semblance of openness, while it provides them with a major (well, maybe not major) venue for countering anything that Anthony or you or I might post there between classes or before work. Gates has an army of Ivy-Leaguers to dissect, slice, and dice any suggestion by anyone foolish to enough to think they are interested in listening, rather than issuing communiques in the form of phony dialogue provided by a good man naive to enough to believe what they say over lattes.
The only way to end corporate control of education is through non-violent civil disobedience and relentless puncturing of the bad policy ideas and actions that the Gates and Broad and Walton non-educators float up into the edusphere. By Anthony opening his blog up to the Borg, he stands to make the "debate" about his ideas, rather than the self-serving positivized neo-eugenics of the corporate Rat Pack. Speaking truth to power is not an option when power doesn't give a shit about what you say. Action is the only way to alter the power dynamic, and the sooner the conventioneers realize that, the sooner we can begin to expand the action.
Speaking of a lot of useless talk, here is the whole thing below, based on this post that asked a simple question: Does Corporate VP Bob George's carrying the checkbook for SOS represent the appearance of conflict of interest:
I have been as critical of the Common Core as anyone, but I do not think it serves us to make allies into enemies at a time when we need all hands on deck to fight the high stakes testing that is destroying our schools. We need to build the strongest coalition possible -- just as we did in organizing for the SOS March. I wrote a post about this that went up this morning. http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/05/common_core_challenges_our_uni.html
Please, let us hang together, or we will surely all hang separately.
Anthony Cody
I respect your opinion, I, too am critical of the Rotten Core. I fail to see, however, how privateering while purportedly supporting the end of privateering does not constititute a conflict of interest. Perhaps you can that explain to me. I'm listening.
I am sorry you consider posting the facts as shoddy.
Unlike last year’s event, the convention won’t be a March/Rally, but rather a working meeting, including a series of speakers, intended to shape and approve SOS Principles. In this effort we view educators and those believe [sic] in public education as a primary allies [sic]. We are aware that without support of the public, no change is possible. Together let us plan to March wherever potential and current policymakers meet.
Got that? Lots of comfortable speeches and endless arguments where everyone gets to talk. More talk and crafting of planks of platforms that will mean as much at the end of the day as the one being crafted in Charlotte this summer. More talk when what is need is direct action with demands, rather than wish lists.
I do not know the degree of conflict between Bob George's work with Catapult, and his stance as a core volunteer working to advance the cause of Save our Schools. But even if such a conflict exists, and it certainly exists for many besides him whom I would like to consider potential allies, I do not think this renders him an enemy of the cause. I do not demand that everyone in my life resolve all conflicts of interest, and if that is going to be the basis of our movement, we are going to find ourselves very few, even if very pure.
Reminds me of when Myles Horton was asked about accepting financial help from the big philanthropists, who back in those days, did not demand you sell your soul to get the money. Giving was giving then, rather than investing as it is with today's vulture philanthropists. So Myles was asked if it wasn't hypocritical on his part to accept money from Ford or Carnegie, and if, indeed, it wasn't a case of him biting the hand that was feeding him and the Highlander Center.
Myles replied that he didn't mind biting the hand and that, in fact, he would chew it off up to the shoulder. But that did not mean he would not put the foundation boys in charge of Highlander. So thank you, Bob, for your contribution and hard work. Now get the hell out of your position of power.
Andrea Merida
Founding Member
Parents Across America
Perhaps SOS should identify a set of standards for Steering Committee candidates that would prevent persons with genuine and serious conflicts of interest from serving in leadership positions. I would actually not be against that. But until then, we cannot start doing background checks on every individual who volunteers to run for the Steering Committee. A witch hunt that fuels suspicion and mistrust is not good for SOS and not good for our movement.
Jim, if you really wanted to protect SOS from possible conflicts of interest, you could have gone directly to the Steering Committee with the information about Catapult and asked for a discussion regarding Bob's possible conflict of interest. They could have given Bob a chance to respond to your allegations and decide how to proceed. But instead, you went public in a way that is potentially damaging to the image of SOS and to the unity of this growing movemement. I need to understand why you would conduct a public lynching of one Steering Committee member instead of taking your concerns to the entire leadership and membership for consideration. I hope this was just a case of poor judgement rather than an intentional attempt to discredit SOS. This organization is our best hope for galvanizing a national movement, and with all the power and money backing our opposition, the last thing we need is for our own supporters to attack and weaken us.
Bess Altwerger, Co-organizer and former Executive Committee Member of Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action.
Public lynching, indeed. If Bob George has been as open with Steered Committee as he claims in regards to his Senior Vice President's position at Catapult, then who has neglected this apparent conflict of interest besides Bob George, and who has refused to care enough to investigate the matter? I am pointing up the facts as they exist and asking the question that your have failed to ask, and if you consider that a lynching, then so be it.
It never occurred to me to discuss with the Steering Committee of SOS or any other organization which stories that I post at SM. When it was brought to my attention recently that the guy carrying the checkbook at SOS and controlling the website and the database was a senior vice president of a company that represents everything that I thought that SOS was opposed to, I thought it worth posting a question on the SOS website, along with the company profile of Catapult Learning.
A day or two later Bob sent me an email, wanting to have a private conversation about the problem that he said that he recognized. I replied that our conversation should be a public one, and that it could start by his posting my question at SOS that asked him about his apparent conflict of interest. He did not reply. And so we are having our public airing here, but I can see that I am the one to answer for asking the serious question that Bob George and his circling wagons continue to ignore.
You are not going to galvanize anything as long as waste your time trying to marginalize Jim Horn for asking the questions that you have ignored. How long did you think it was going to take before someone asked why you have a major privateer running driving your vehicle?
SOS "hijacked"? How? Bob was democratically elected to leadership by his fellow SOS members. That was probably because of his unselfish commitment and leadership last year in building the SOS March/Conference, which, in your own words, "exhibited the best in grassroots traditions and brought together a movement from within to challenge the many decades of failed accountability measures..."
Are you saying that last year, Bob was working in the "best grassroots tradition" abut that he's now switched sides, only to fool us all into voting for him so he could hijack the movement? Incredible!
And what about Betsy, who has volunteered hundreds of hours of her time to work on restoring the SOS website, only to be attacked for being Bob's "significant friend." This rings of chauvinism to me.
As for your opposition to the upcoming SOS Peoples Platform Convention, Aug. 3-5 in D.C.? Now that's a more interesting discussion. Let's have at it. You seem to think that marches are the only tactic or that a march is somehow a higher form of struggle than a conference. I'd like to hear you make your case on this, but without getting into attacks on anyone's integrity who may disagree with you.
All I can say as a member of the Steering Committee, is that we all voted unanimously to hold this convention in August, right or wrong, with the best of intentions. When it's all over, we can go back and sum it up and see how we can improve our work or adjust our tactics.
The idea behind it was nothing less than to give voice to teachers around policy issues in the face of the upcoming elections. We felt once we had the platform issues in place, we could move on and hold actions at the party conventions.
SOS members also supported and helped organize in recent weeks, Occupy the DOE and the civil rights march in Selma, Alabama. So we are all for marching. But marches are not the only or necessarily best tactic all the time. We need to be flexible in tactics and firm in principle.
As for the Common Core, neither Bob nor Betsy, as far as I know support the CC. But even if they did, it would be no crime. I oppose it but some of the best people in our movement, including Pedro Noguera and Linda Darling-Hammond support it or are working in coalitions trying to shape it. (See my blog post on this at http://bit.ly/Jb1nmw).
The best way to resolve issues like this is through debate and discussion, minus the personal attacks. A great model was established by Deb Meier and Diane Ravitch and their Bridging Differences blog.
As for conflicts of interest, Anthony is right. Many of us work for universities or school systems or companies that are complicit with corporate reforms. But the best idea is to judge leaders and ourselves on what they (we) do. No one in SOS is being paid for their work (unfortunately). We are all volunteers.
I think you owe Bob and Betsy an apology.
Mike Klonsky
In regards to the SOS Peoples Platform Convention and its agenda, yes, I do think it’s a big of waste of time to spend three days arguing about a document that will be entirely ignored once it is completed and hand delivered to wherever you are delivering it. And no, I don’t think marches “are the only tactic.” In fact, I think there are many other direct actions, acts of civil disobedience and non-violent resistance that pay much bigger dividends. The people we are dealing with don’t give a damn about what you or I say, but they will pay attention to what we do, if we do them as smartly as we are capable of doing them.
This organization needs to engage young people in this struggle, rather than continue to recycle a bunch of geezers like you and me. In the youngsters is where we will find the creative ideas and strategies and energy that we can help them realize to realize if we are lucky and work hard enough at it.
If you want to make excuses for Bob George’s occupational choices and the embarrassment he has brought to your organization, that, of course, is your choice to make. His carrying the water, however, for an outfit like Catapult that represents the worst kind of education privateering, cannot, cannot be equated, even by someone of your rhetorical gifts, with a teacher who is forced to administer a test that is being forced on their kids by other privateers with the same motives as Catapult. Or is it just all business.
If you and the other Steering Committee members want to continue to defend Bob while he remains in the shadows playing the victim, that is your choice. From over here, it looks bad. And don’t expect me to apologize for how bad.
Good question. Last year, the previous SOS March/Rally Organizing Committee came out with a statement of "guiding principles" which included "AN END TO HIGH STAKES TESTING USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDENT, TEACHER, AND SCHOOL EVALUATION" and "CURRICULUM DEVELOPED FOR AND BY LOCAL SCHOOL COMMUNITIES" (which I suppose can be interpreted as being at variance with Common Core).
You can find these and other statements of principles on our website at: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/
I hope to see you at our Peoples Platform Convention, Aug. 3-5 in D.C. where these and other issues can be discussed in a more appropriate setting.
While the original SOS "Four Demands" railed against high-stakes testing, and promoted locally developed curriculum, the white paper on curriculum (which I assume has now been taken down by those willing volunteers) was very specifically and explicitly agnostic on the Common Core and (not insignificantly) on NCLB itself.
How did that happen? Well, certain members of the Executive Committee did not want to come out against the Common Core and the tests aligned with the Common Core. Others did. So there was a kind of fudging--saying we were for "locally developed curriculum" (whatever that is) and not getting specific about things in NCLB (such as profits from private, after-school tutoring mandated under NCLB).
Thanks for asking the question. There was dissent from the get-go on last year's Exec Committee about what we were for and what we were against. And this year's Steering Committee didn't want to deal with clear policy recommendations. It's one of the reasons why I resigned.
Bob actions have been to join us at every step on this journey of resistance. You can judge people by their employment, but I judge them by their actions.
As for marches and conventions I go where ever there is a fight against this madness that seeks to destroy public education. Nearly three years ago on my 400 mile walk to DC to protest NCLB/RTTT policies I felt all alone on that walk until I read Valerie Strauss’s Article ‘The Partial List” where Diane Ravitch told Secretary Duncan he had a problem with teachers in Florida. He told her that he did not know any teachers opposed to his policies. > http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/arne-duncans-opposition-a-part.html< Her article highlighted the growing opposition to Secretary Duncan’s policies. It was a slap in Arne Duncan’s face. On that list was “Children Are More Than Test Scores” the Facebook group I created to fight the notion that the best measure of a child is a test score. I was proud to be walking, and to be on her list. Now that opposition has becomes a ground well, and SOS hopes to gather it in DC. We are calling all resisters to come discuss, debate, and to create a unified declaration of independence from top down mandates that are destroying our public schools. We are not asking people to become SOSers on the contrary we want groups to remain who they are, to be true to their own principles, to share resistance stories, and to come write a common narrative of resistance.
We had hope that our SOS congress last year would have completed that task, but organizing a conference, rally, and the march left us little energy to accomplish that task. We also needed to understand that tis is not about SOS, but about what is happening to America’s children and teachers. We never lost cite of that mission to create a declaration demanding that education reform be reframed around policies that respect children, parents, teachers, local schools, and diverse communities. A declaration of indolence from top down mandates that will be thrown in the face of both political parties at their conventions.
In the faces of 50 governors.
In the faces of every school board member, and
To be plastered on the walls of every Department of Education in America.
Perhaps that is trivia to some, but to me it speaks of an action that sparks a million other actions.
We are inspire by the actions of abolitionists at the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, that first national women’s rights convention that became the pivotal event that gave birth to the women’s suffrage movement in America. Sometimes a convention gives rise to a movement. Bob like hundreds of other SOSers works by day to pay the bills, and spends all of his free time fighting the good fight with a bunch of others seeking to topple that deformer policy house of cards that reduces children to data. In my book Bob George’s thousands of hours of free service count
Sincerely,
Jesse The Walking Man Turner
In refusing to address the question of conflict of interest while continuing to paint Bob as a tortured hero who must hawk test prep to 8 year olds by day while he marches for the cause of social justice on the weekends points to an incapacity or refusal to address the question, which asked another way: Does SOS want senior vice presidents for privateering and exploitative corporations steering its vehicle?
Common core is a nice way of saying national/centralized curriculum. How is that going to serve a diverse nation as this?
Leads me to recall what my grampa always said: You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.
Please identify yourself by name in order to get past the moderator of the thread.
The SOS Convention is the time and place to propose a plank on the Common Core. I'd be happy to work with you on writing one and putting it forward to the members of SOS and push for them to adopt it. I have made my own views in opposition to Common Core clear many times. The SOS National Steering Committee is not a group that issues proclamations or the party line on various issues. That's exactly why we need a Peoples Platform Convention. SOS has a few general principals that we have and continue to fight for. I look forward to your statement on CC to bring before the membership.
Mike Klonsky
If you look at the original demands of SOS pasted below, it should be obvious to all that this organization has always been squarely in opposition to mandated top-down curriculum and high stakes testing. Since the DC rally and march last summer, the facts surrounding the Common Core Initiative and its connection to the testing agenda has become much more prominent in the national consciousness. I agree that it must now be addressed by SOS and included in the "People's Education Platform" that SOS intends to finalize at the convention next summer. I invite both of you to volunteer to help out in the development of this platform and contribute your knowledge and insights.
There are those in positions of power who would like to see SOS and this movement devolve into in-fighting, accusations and mistrust. That is how the powers that be have historically kept us from building mass movements that can bring about real change in this country. We cannot allow that to happen this time. If we have issues and concerns or differences in viewpoints concerning SOS, let's deal with them in a spirit of solidarity rather than through public attacks and insinuations. Either SOS can grow stronger by engaging in honest dialogue and debate amongst comrads in struggle, or we can feed right into the hands of those who would like to see us disappear.
Bess
Original Main SOS Demands:
-Equitable funding for all public school communities
-End to high stakes testing for student, teacher, and school evaluation
-Teacher, family and community leadership in forming public education policies
-Curriculum developed for and by local school communities
I've written and spoken on the issues the SOS march addressed for more than a decade, often at great professional risk. That is why I flew from Los Angeles to D.C. at considerable expense to bake in the hot sun last year to protect children and teachers from destructive nonsense like Common Core.
I spoke at the National School Boards Association Conference a couple of weeks ago. I asked the several hundred Board members in my session, "How many of you voted for Common Core?" "How many politicians in your state ran for office promising national curriculum (I mean Common Core)?" Not a single hand was raised. Common Core may have some educators as supporters, perhaps even some of our friends, but it the latest looting of the public schools by the Pearson/Gates Foundation cabal.
Common Core is a threat to democracy. It is of a piece with testing, teacher-shamming, mayoral control and the erosion of public confidence on public education. The assumptions upon which Common Core was created are ridiculous. At best, they homogenize curriculum and cast it in amber. At worst, they destroy teacher agency, deskill and de-professionalize. There are many who believe that when Common Core is in place, teachers can be replaced by YouTube videos.
If I return to D.C. this summer, I hope my old friend Susan Ohanian will be there to join me in expanding the fight to those who are destroying public education, while transferring public treasure to private hands.
However, it is preposterous for you to assert that asking questions about the SOS movement is: 1) a form of disloyalty or 2) that there are "powers that be" who are attempting to thwart our efforts. I only wish that the Obama Administration, Pearson, Gates Foundation, Eli Broad, ALEC, McGraw-Hill, etc... were even aware of SOS' existence.
It is absurd to suggest that a person's employment is unrelated to their service to a cause.
Only educators would hold a protest rally during their vacation on the hottest day of the year while the government was in recess. I sure wish we would start being a less polite and engage in actions that will wake up "the people."
The "People's Education Platform" should be reconsidered. It sounds a tad bit Bolshevik. Why not create the "Professional Educator's Platform." Parents and citizens can contribute to that statement and support it, but the advice contained within should (IMHO) assert that educators are reclaiming their workplace and working conditions.
In case you don't know much about me, let me assure you that we are in total agreement about the Common Core. I have worked vigorously to expose it's corporate underbelly through presentations, webinars and other means. I have offered evidence that the National Council on Education and the Economy (NCEE) and it's subsidiary America's Choice (now owned by Pearson), Achieve and all of it's corporate sponsors, and ultimately Lumina, ALEC, Gates, etc. lie at the heart of the Common Core Initiative. Achieve and America's Choice senior executives even chaired and sat on the CCSS Language Arts and Math Standards Committees! Pearson, McGraw-Hill and Wireless Generation will ultimately be the beneficiaries of all thing Common Core. Students, parents, teachers and public education will be the losers.
I also believe we that cannot allow the discussion of the Common Core to be limited to debate over the content of the standards themselves. This misses the most important point: the Common Core is the next step in the corporate takeover of public education, from curriculum to assessment to teacher evaluation to school and system closings to private ownership.
Gary, I invite...no urge... you, Susan, Stephen and others to work with the folks in SOS who will be hammering together an education platform this summer(hell, you can even help name it). Last year, when SOS issued its demands (which I was involved in writing), people kept saying that we needed to clearly spell out "our" vision for public education--what we were for, not just what we were against. They wanted an alternative "program" that they could use as an organizing tool in the battle to save our schools and communities from over a decade of bipartisan assault. I hope organizations and individuals from within the movement will work with SOS to accomplish this goal- to help formulate the program and attend the convention to finalize and ratify it.
It is also my view that we need to mobilize teachers, parents, students and all education activists for mass actions in regional cities on Labor Day. Pograms have no teeth without mass mobilization.
Finally, in case you think otherwise, I look forward to vigorous debate about the issues we face as a movement. However, in order for this debate to be constructive rather than destructive, it must be done in a spirit of solidarity. Asking questions about conflicts of interest is important and hopefully productive, but using scare tactics about "hijacking" is clearly not.
Bess
I have not attacked SOS.
I suggest this platform item:
Save Our Schools is opposed to the Common Core State Standards funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and forced on the states by Race to the Top bribes administered by the office of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
I would be satisfied that the item stop after the word 'Standards,' but offer the rest for clarity.
I too worked with Bob, Bess, and Anthony on the original SOS Executive Committee and worked on the transitional committee to get a new Steering Committee elected. Some facts in your blog are not correct. Bob does not know how to access the SOS database.I maintained that database in Constant Contact before the march and continue to do so. New members’ names go directly to Constant Contact from the website and their contact info is not available to Bob or to Betsy.
Bess, Anthony, and Mike have addressed the points that need to be made. I don’t need to restate them. I know that people of integrity can and do find a way to walk a narrow line between competing interests. If I had taken a tutoring position with Catapult or another tutoring company or opened a franchise when I retired, I would have continued to be very vocal about my support of public education and also railed against NCLB. Regardless of where Bob works, he understands the damage that NCLB has done to public education --- and to our students and our democracy. It’s very clear to me that Bob’s heart and passion are centered around what is best for kids. I am sure that he would have made more money for himself and Catapult if he had not been immersed in SOS the last two years.
We are told we can tell a person’s values by where he spends his time, energy, and money. Bob is a tireless worker. SOS would have fallen apart if Bob had not stayed on during the transitional time after the march. And it would have fallen apart again if Bob had not been elected to the new Steering Committee. His dedication to our movement is exceptional and because I have worked with him closely, I have no doubts about his values whatever.
Jim, I have heard so many good things about you and often read your blog. Your questions are legitimate – except that you cite suspicions, not specific actions. Yes, we all suspect people who are in a position like Bob’s because we understand human nature. Such people quite often put themselves first and are users, nothing more. However, as you can see, people who have worked with Bob from the inception of the SOS movement are standing up for him -- and they speak highly of him.
Not all of the members of the SOS Steering Committee were aware yesterday of your post. Bob will notify them today. I suggest that you send Bob a list of your questions and allow him to reply. Your post is somewhat akin to “When did you stop beating your wife?” If I haven’t done anything wrong, how do I respond unless the questioner gives specific examples of actual misdeeds that I can refute, not just suspicions.
As for Betsy,she has done very little work for SOS except to create graphics and volunteer every time we lose a webmaster. She steps in and works tirelessly to keep things going during interim times and emergencies. Right now, she shares webmaster duties with someone else. She and Bob do not control content. Betsy sends content, much of it written by others, to the Steering Committee for approval.I just got a cc of the email asking the Steering Committee to approve the latest post about Teacher Appreciation Week, which was written by Rosalie Friend. I can forward it to you if you'd like to see it.
If Bob has control of the checkbook, it has been a recent event that occurred once the new Steering Committee began meeting – which was not that long ago. Bess Altwerger was the treasurer for SOS and although she chose not to run for the Steering Committee, she remained the treasurer throughout the transitional period. The bills for Constant Contact continue to go to her address. If Bob is the treasurer, it’s probably because no one else on the new Steering Committee volunteered to do so. Ask him.
So in answer to your question in the last paragraph of your post: Yes, what you assert is definitely possible. It COULD have happened – if it had been someone else. But knowing Bob George as I do, I don’t believe it.
Katherine Cox
What you call "suspicions" that I cite, I call facts. Bob George is a Senior Vice President of Catapult Learning, one of the prime privateering enterprises that prey on poor Title I schools, collecting millions for their executives in federal taxpayer dollars. Bob is not picking up a part-time tutoring job in his retirement, while he devotes himself to upending the business plan of the corporation that pays his salary.
Which brings me back to the question, the only question I have for Bob or the SC of SOS: Does it or does it not present the appearance of a conflict of interest to have a Senior Vice President for Catapult Learning behind the steering wheel of an organization that shows every other indication of representing values antithetical to those of Catapult Learning?
Again, you may blame me for presenting the facts or asking the question that the Steering Committee has chosen to ignore, but that doesn't make it right. The Steering Committee may, indeed, decide that keeping a VP for Catapult on the Board, er, Steering Committee, is an effective way to attract people to their cause. From where I sit, that conclusion looks like a real thought disorder.
SOS Guiding Principles
For the future of our children, we demand:
* EQUITABLE FUNDING FOR ALL PUBLIC SCHOOL COMMUNITIES
Equitable funding across all public schools and school systems
Full public funding of family and community support services
Full funding for 21st century school and neighborhood libraries
An end to economically and racially re-segregated schools
* AN END TO HIGH STAKES TESTING USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDENT, TEACHER, AND SCHOOL EVALUATION
The use of multiple and varied assessments to evaluate students, teachers, and schools
An end to pay per test performance for teachers and administrators
An end to public school closures based upon test performance
*TEACHER, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP IN FORMING PUBLIC EDUCATION POLICIES
Educator and civic community leadership in drafting new ESEA legislation
Federal support for local school programs free of punitive and competitive funding
An end to political and corporate control of curriculum, instruction and assessment decisions for teachers and administrators
*CURRICULUM DEVELOPED FOR AND BY LOCAL SCHOOL COMMUNITIES
Support for teacher and student access to a wide-range of instructional programs and technologies
Well-rounded education that develops every student’s intellectual, creative, and physical potential
Opportunities for multicultural/multilingual curriculum for all students
Small class sizes that foster caring, democratic learning communities
Finally we were early signers of the National resolution against high-stakes tests , >http://timeoutfromtesting.org/nationalresolution<
As for Marching:
We certainly aren't done marching either Jim. SOSers were at the Selma Jubilee in Alabama last March, we endorsed Occupy the DOE, and sent speakers as well. I'll be at occupy New Haven this Mother's Day with Mark Nielsen speaking out against what is happening in our schools, and to every member of the 99%. You can't even imagine how speaking for SOS on Mother's day is sitting with my wife. You have my speech up on your blog from Occupy as well. You was there when I called the US DOE a den of thieves. Get ready for part two this Sunday.
We are also not done with protesting, we'll not done with marching, SOSers be marching again on Labor Day, speaking up, occupying, and fighting for children, parents, teachers, local schools, and diverse communities. It is not by chance we used the wording of demands either in our principles.
Respectfully,
Jesse Turner National SOS Steering Committee Member
I respectfully ask, as I've asked a number of times already, what is the SOS position on the Common core State [sic] Standards?
I have a simple solution: everyone should reread an article that was published as a sort-a book by Beacon Press some years ago called Will Standards Save Public Education. There are responses from some allies (and non-allies) that are short and sweet. Then we can all agree, with me!!!
But honestly, folks, being the "leftwing of the possible" requires enlarging our tent not finding reasons for pushing folks out the door.
We have a crisis: the ending of even a fairly crummy system of public education--and its privatization which will be hard to reverse. Imagine the debate on health care in ten years time about school care!!!
Yes things can be worse. And the strategic differences between us are hardly a reason to sabotage the best we can do--at this moment in time. Many of those favoring the common core, for example, have good points to make. Is it the tests that follow such "cores" that is the real danger or the core itself. I'm against both, but the real danger is the implications for testing, ranking and incentives. I think we have a wide tent on the latter and should focus on that. Sampling is something we could be pushing about which there might be far wider agreement, etc, etc.
But name calling should be out! I hesitate even for true enemies to get into that game. But toward are 90% allies? It's true, those may seem like good targets because they actually say "ouch"--while the real "enemies" could care less what we say. Unless we represent a real force--numbers (as someone in a recent blog, I forget who, said).
Investigative reporting on the weaknesses of our enemies may be useful, but looking to score points against each other by digging up so-called "dirt"--which is hardly dirt at all, sometimes even untrue and at best just how we survive in the real world.
We have a great opportunity to come together - in large numbers (or speaking for large numbers) this summer and presenting a few trenchantly stated points about what the next President ought to do. We don't need a laundry list, and we don't need to avoid debate (civil), but in the end we want to highlight those that thee is least disagreement about among the broader education "left".
In fact I advocate our not adopting any policy on which there is not an "almost" consensus.
There's plenty of time and plenty of places to speak our piece - IF we can concentrate on where we agree.
In short, we're not writing chapter for a Beacon book, but developing a pithy set of issues to stop or even slow down the well-financed onslaught against everything and anything public.
Diane and I didn't start off speaking so politely to each other--but we learned many years ago that if we treated each other like interesting opponents we'd learn something, even if we didn't change our minds.
It's exactly the same principle so many of us bring into our classrooms as we listen to our students: they may have something to teach me if I listen with care. There may be a sense in which rocks are living things, and maybe living/nonliving is a foolish dichotomy. Thanks, 5 year old Darryl. Etc etc.
Let's stick together even if it occasionally means we have to suppress a really funny retort.
Deb
While addressing these subjects (CC and the Testing Initiative) we need to be clear whether we are discussing Strategy (appropriate for discussing complex objectives) or Tactics (which need to be very specific so as to promote more cohesive action).
•CC issues are more complex; opposing the testing initiative is a simpler concept;
• Someone who opposes CC may be easier to convince to stand with you against the testing initiative but one can have mixed thoughts about CC and still be resolutely opposed to the testing initiative;
• Convincing someone to join with you in your stand against the testing initiative does not require that you first convince them to agree with you regarding all or most CC issues.
• Numerous School Boards (like around 40 in Texas) and others are already on record as opposing the testing initiative; its time to join in and route the enemy with a single tactical action
At this point, we should be concerned with stopping or seriously delaying the testing initiative because that objective is clear and has unanimous consensus. Tactics, almost by definition can’t have overly complex objectives. However, a successfully carried out tactic can have implications for more complex objectives. For example, if we stop or delay implementation of the testing-evaluation program, there will be more time to define and build up consensus regarding CC-issues; on the other hand, compounding our tactics by requiring agreement regarding less clearly identified CC-issues can confound interpretation of the success of the action as well as reduce the likelihood of success. In general, if strategic objectives are not broken down first any tactics can produce chaotic results.
I remember a very influential academic who once supported the NCLB and worked for a conservative president only to make an 180 turn and write one of the more influential books on progressive education in this country. It was through dialogue, an openness to other voices and research that change came about. I'm going to a benefit where Diane Ravitch is lecturing on Thursday.
I know that this is sort of an inappropriate comparison to the situation, but I will continue to support and listen to Springsteen when his most recent work stands up for the working people even though he's far from being one. His heart's in the right place and he's an activist/philanthropist though full of conflicts of interest.Let's see where Bob's heart is, where it's going and what he has to say. We certainly owe him that much.
Terry Moore
NJ Information Coordinator
David Coleman, the McKinsey-trained bully who does not "give a shit" about what children think, has a lineup of readings for middle schoolers that I read as an undergraduate. This is all part of the movement to excise the hearts and bodies of children and leave them with their disembodied and alienated logic units intact. God Save the Global Economy!
Those who shrug and accept one end of the false dichotomy that the Common Core is at least better than just reading and math should have a look at what these scary clowns are putting together. As Susan Ohanian has documented.
And, of course, the other more practical consideration is what happens to the power of diversity when there is none--when we have been assimilated by the Common Core. There is clear empirical evidence now from researchers like Scott Page that diversity trumps expertise in any kind of problem solving.
So if your only concern is competing in the global economy, the same adult stupidity that David Coleman would impose on all our children is counterproductive to that end that Coleman's patrons are seeking.
It is truly time to stop giving a shit about what Gates and Broad think, but to protect our children's childhoods, and thus our futures. And we don't need a three-day faculty meeting to make that call!
Second, It seems a no brainer that SOS should be public in it's stance against Common Core. We know what the ultimate goal of that is and it goes against all the previously stated planks.The fact that there are people who are reticent about that concerns me. We aren't here to make friends...we are here to change the course of education policy and history.
Everyone here who has posted I respect and am appreciative of your perspective, but everyone must realize we don't have YOUR experience with Bob and sometimes when something walks like a duck, quack likes a duck, ...it's a duck. He needs to answer the question and there is nothing wrong with asking the question. Instead of getting feathers ruffled, if there is no conflict, it should be an easy question to answer and Bob should understand that. It was very easy for my husband to understand my perspective that his work my jeapardize my legitmacy in a movement I feel so strongly about. There's my two cents for what it's worth.
Meanwhile, as this debate takes up way too much time, Students First has moved into my state. They opened up an office across the street from the capitol, hired SIX lobbyists and are handing out money to legislators like candy. They are also having parent meetings all over the state where the message that teachers are bad and your children are suffering is being spread. And they’re winning. Last week, the House in MO passed the nastiest anti-teacher bill I’ve ever seen. Democrats who were endorsed by our union just 18 months ago and promised to vote in our best interests took money from Students First and voted to destroy teachers’ careers.
They also have a plan to dissolve my district and bring in outside contractors to run the schools. Fortunately it looks like that bill won’t pass this session but we have been told it will be brought back next year and the year after that and every year until it passes. We’ve been assured that unless test scores go up a lot, our district will be dissolved. And I know I don’t need to tell anyone reading this how likely it is that test scores will skyrocket.
I had such high hopes for SOS last July. A network of teachers across the country facing similar struggles, organizing, helping each other, planning regional and national events. What a great idea! And now, 9 months later, where are we? There was an Occupy the DOE event that was poorly attended and a conference is planned in August when many teachers will already be back at school and unable to attend. (Did the organizers not realize that many school districts start in early August now?)
So SOS is going to have to give me a reason to want to continue my involvement. As an IC, I need to know what to tell the SOS members in my state. Last August I was willing to pay dues to SOS to keep it going. Now, after reading all of these replies, seeing too many people we worked hard to elect quit only a few months after that election, after they planned an event I won’t even be able to attend, I have to wonder what’s the point. And I’m glad I didn’t pay any dues.
Someone upthread made a comment about the value of work, and the credibility it provides. I think it’s a good time for SOS to consider that. How about actually doing something that counts as work.
Anne Pritchett
Kansas City
Because the masses themselves did not have a quality education in which they were taught and encouraged to question authority, most who are now parents are naive and believe any and all information about how to improve education that comes from "authority"! So, of course NCLB/RttT and testing is good. They all buy into the propaganda and want their kids to have a good score. They do not know what really good education should look like as no one "schools" them in this matter!
Schools bear blame for this because the few really interested parents are usually kept at bay and invited to bring cupcakes or run copies for a teacher. The few parents who think they have input while serving on school and district committees, are really ignored, so the school system stays as is. Average for most.
I have seen truly bad teachers during my children's school years and administrators have always protected those teachers. So, "We the People" DO believe that tenure for teachers makes it impossible to get rid of those who are unfit to teach, and even damage kids in the process.
If SOS is going the win the battle against standardized testing it will need many, many parents, and students too, on its side. So far, most SOS supporters are teachers.
1. The truth about how US students compare with other countries and the degree to which this has really changed over the past 20-years. I have seen some articles report that SAT scores have not really declined that much and that the statistics used to turn the country against teachers were based on biases between the samples that were used by other countries (when compared to the USA) and that most differences could be explained by the growth in those in poverty in the US,
2. Spending per child (your state vs National avg)current and 25-year trends;
3. Dropout and graduation rates (your state vs avg) and increased prison populations
4. What Science has discovered about learning and the brain and how it converts to the need for small class-sizes especially in the early years;
5. How increases in community college and on-line courses have been used to keep the employed managers up to date with increases in knowledge compared to what we have spent upgrading Teachers' knowledge base.
6. Explain Federal, state and local funding; Formula grant program and NCLB and Obama’s discretionary RttT.
7. Growth of Charter and Voucher schools – the story of New Orleans post Katrina
8. Distribution of power and control: School Boards, Districts, types of schools and State and Federal laws re fulfilling the education of normal and special-needs children; number of districts and schools of different types in your state.
9. The Homeschooling alternative.
10. Privatization of schools and testing. How are expenditures for Charter schools and testing justified especially when the money comes from savings realized by replacing experienced teachers by TFA's (explain what a TFA is and how they are subsidized by your federal tax dollars).
11. Materials to debunk the 'bad teacher' myth.
There is so much good material on the internet but most parents don't browse the same sites we do or have the time to learn the good sites much less read the material. I am sure there are many out there who can refine this outline better than me (I am only a concerned citizen and not a professional educator).
We need to fight back beyond demonstrating to ask for support from people who don't understand the problem. Could SOS pick up coordinating an initiative like this? It seems like we have a little analysis paralysis going on here.
As if you did not know already, Anne, that day is gone, for good, perhaps, but for now for sure. Teachers can no longer afford to close the door or to not have an opinion.
If you do not have an opinion, someone will have one for you, and in today's Gilded Age II, it is most often the reps from the corporatocracy. They are on a roll, and they depend upon a dedicated profession of teachers focused in and not out, doing what was their job, once upon a time.
All of us owe ourselves and the children we teach our best informed opinions and an organized willingness to act, on any issue that may affect these children. Anything less denies the future we may inherit by no other means than that of our persistent making.
Horton responded that he didn't mind biting the hand, and that, in fact, he would chew it off up the shoulder. So while he accepted their donations (they were donations then, rather than investment by vultures today), he did not put the foundation boys on his steering committee. He said, thank you, now go away and let us get our business done.
So thanks, Bob, for your help. 3rd time I have said that. Your status, however, as a senior VP for a company that preys on poor public schools with your privateering product line, and your position on the Steering Committee of SOS would seem to create a conflict of interest in the minds of most people who do give a rat's ass about attracting more people who can believe in the integrity of this organization.
Now if the agenda of SOS is not to dump the corporate ed reform agenda and all the corruption and abuse that go with it, then there would not be a conflict of interest at all. You might even invite in the Gates people to sit on the Steering Committee. This has nothing to do with being holier-than-thou, but it does have something to do, I hope, with distinguishing this organization's values from those of predatory capitalism that most of us abhor, I think.
I was the acting secretary of the SOS 2011 Organizing Committee when we began with eight of us. We grew to 14. There was no vying for positions at that time, it was a scramble to find people to do the work that needed doing.
I reviewed and researched Bob's bio before it went public. There was always transparency concerning his work but there was never any questioning of his integrity, as there was my own. Ironically, I was constantly standing guard over this group, trying my best to keep them together and moving forward. So I do hope some of you will hear what I have to say, from my lessons learned working for SOS.
You so-called education activists out there need to quit eating your own and change the law you claim has done you so much harm. AND, upgrade the education profession while you are at it so the public will quit looking for quick fixes and get sold these "corporate" solutions - what they see as their only promise of hope.
It's never a good idea to chase away the worker bees --- it kills the colony!
Blind faith in people? Oh, hell. Even you activists can't tell with certainty the good guys from the bad guys. The sabotage for the PR for the SOS March came from an entirely different corner of the ring. Bob's efforts to raise money made last years events possible, along with the collective efforts of many others. Actions do always speak louder than words...you want to protect the movement and move it forward, you need to know the players...the facts.
Nancy did not get the chronological development of the demands correct. The members that came into the planning late or missed too many meetings, missed out on a few crucial discussions that the secretary (me) was unable to catch every word of. You had to be there.
Jim, you made a good point about "the stand." I pushed hard to get clarity on that; I never got it (and I was taking notes)!
You all keep talking about what you fight against, now, what do you fight for? Quality and equality, to strengthen and improve a public education system to serve the public's children. FOCUS**the children.
Convention or march? Organization or movement?
Anyone needing facts about SOS is welcome to contact me. I have no dog in this fight. I was excluded from the group long ago but I forgive them their ignorance. My own cause has always been to educate to improve education. victoriayoung@clearwire.net
That isn't the fight going on here or in many other places. The "adult" fight is happening because we slap labels on each other, apparently justifying exclusion, so we never find the common ground upon which we can walk together...and peacefully find our solutions. Too many are fighting the wrong education war.
The fight for quality and equality is one we should fight together, to win.
You may be entirely correct in your read on Bob George, and if SOS Steering Committee's own Senior VP for Catapult Learning, LLC were truly guided by the best intentions and the deepest commitment to making SOS stronger, why does he continue to allow his apparent conflict of interest be placed above everything else? Why does he allow the question of his integrity, which will never be settled because we do NOT know his heart, to cast a shadow on the organization that he wants to grow? Why does he sit in shadows continuing to play the tortured victim as the question of conflict of interest remains entirely unanswered?
Before you can have a big tent, you have to have a tent, and one with real boundaries where people know they can get out the rain. From where I sit, this is a real defining moment for SOS in making its tent. And yes, the bigger danger is inaction. Totally agreed.
Gary Stager11:21 PM
Bess,
I've written and spoken on the issues the SOS march addressed for more than a decade, often at great professional risk. That is why I flew from Los Angeles to D.C. at considerable expense to bake in the hot sun last year to protect children and teachers from destructive nonsense like Common Core.
I spoke at the National School Boards Association Conference a couple of weeks ago. I asked the several hundred Board members in my session, "How many of you voted for Common Core?" "How many politicians in your state ran for office promising national curriculum (I mean Common Core)?" Not a single hand was raised. Common Core may have some educators as supporters, perhaps even some of our friends, but it the latest looting of the public schools by the Pearson/Gates Foundation cabal.
Common Core is a threat to democracy. It is of a piece with testing, teacher-shamming, mayoral control and the erosion of public confidence on public education. The assumptions upon which Common Core was created are ridiculous. At best, they homogenize curriculum and cast it in amber. At worst, they destroy teacher agency, deskill and de-professionalize. There are many who believe that when Common Core is in place, teachers can be replaced by YouTube videos.
If I return to D.C. this summer, I hope my old friend Susan Ohanian will be there to join me in expanding the fight to those who are destroying public education, while transferring public treasure to private hands.
However, it is preposterous for you to assert that asking questions about the SOS movement is: 1) a form of disloyalty or 2) that there are "powers that be" who are attempting to thwart our efforts. I only wish that the Obama Administration, Pearson, Gates Foundation, Eli Broad, ALEC, McGraw-Hill, etc... were even aware of SOS' existence.
It is absurd to suggest that a person's employment is unrelated to their service to a cause.
Only educators would hold a protest rally during their vacation on the hottest day of the year while the government was in recess. I sure wish we would start being a less polite and engage in actions that will wake up "the people."
The "People's Education Platform" should be reconsidered. It sounds a tad bit Bolshevik. Why not create the "Professional Educator's Platform." Parents and citizens can contribute to that statement and support it, but the advice contained within should (IMHO) assert that educators are reclaiming their workplace and working conditions.
I do not know HOW I missed you in D. C. last time. (You're usually pretty hard to miss.)
I continue to rail against Common Core with every breath I have. See the new section on my website.
But I'm not spending $$ and soul to go to SOS meetings at the Marriott.
I'm with you on less polite actions. And local. A couple of years ago I made it my mission to attend meetings of the Vermont State Board of Education--only an hour's drive but an hour in sleet & snow can be hairy. Most of the time at these excruciating meetings I'm the only "public" there. And I make a very short statement against the Common Core. This is too little and too lame but it's difficult to have a one-person demonstration. . . although last August I wore a sandwich board every Friday in Burlington, handing out anti-Common Core pamphlets. Common Core is barely on the radar in VT. NCLB didn't hurt us all that much and teachers still think they're independent.
Now that our governor--who carries a progressive label and who mouths ed policy straight from the mouths of IBM executives and the National Governors Association--has persuaded the legislature to gut the board of ed and give him policy-making power, I don't know what my 'local' tactic will be.
I don't see what's so complicated about a platform. I repeat what I posted above.
Platform Item:
Save Our Schools is opposed to the Common Core State Standards funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and forced on the states by Race to the Top bribes administered by the office of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
I would be satisfied that the item stop after the word 'Standards,' but offer the rest for clarity.
Gary,
In case you don't know much about me, let me assure you that we are in total agreement about the Common Core. I have worked vigorously to expose it's corporate underbelly through presentations, webinars and other means. I have offered evidence that the National Council on Education and the Economy (NCEE) and it's subsidiary America's Choice (now owned by Pearson), Achieve and all of it's corporate sponsors, and ultimately Lumina, ALEC, Gates, etc. lie at the heart of the Common Core Initiative. Achieve and America's Choice senior executives even chaired and sat on the CCSS Language Arts and Math Standards Committees! Pearson, McGraw-Hill and Wireless Generation will ultimately be the beneficiaries of all thing Common Core. Students, parents, teachers and public education will be the losers.
I also believe we that cannot allow the discussion of the Common Core to be limited to debate over the content of the standards themselves. This misses the most important point: the Common Core is the next step in the corporate takeover of public education, from curriculum to assessment to teacher evaluation to school and system closings to private ownership.
Gary, I invite...no urge... you, Susan, Stephen and others to work with the folks in SOS who will be hammering together an education platform this summer(hell, you can even help name it). Last year, when SOS issued its demands (which I was involved in writing), people kept saying that we needed to clearly spell out "our" vision for public education--what we were for, not just what we were against. They wanted an alternative "program" that they could use as an organizing tool in the battle to save our schools and communities from over a decade of bipartisan assault. I hope organizations and individuals from within the movement will work with SOS to accomplish this goal- to help formulate the program and attend the convention to finalize and ratify it.
It is also my view that we need to mobilize teachers, parents, students and all education activists for mass actions in regional cities on Labor Day. Pograms have no teeth without mass mobilization.
Finally, in case you think otherwise, I look forward to vigorous debate about the issues we face as a movement. However, in order for this debate to be constructive rather than destructive, it must be done in a spirit of solidarity. Asking questions about conflicts of interest is important and hopefully productive, but using scare tactics about "hijacking" is clearly not.
Bess
And it must have been a scary question to bring this response from you: "I need to understand why you would conduct a public lynching of one Steering Committee member. . ."
I know which is scarier to me.
Let's not wait. While we are waiting, the common core continues to grow and gain strength.
Here's my vote: Oppose common core standards/tests. Can we simply adopt the resolution we presented (actually tried to present) at NCTE?
And to the credit of the Occupiers, they have not been diverted from that prophetic work by criticism from those who want that glaring spotlight to be aimed back at the Occupiers? Step forward with your own agenda, cry the corporate overlords. The Occupiers haven't bought it.
I suggest that in stopping the momentum barely begun last year in calling out the crooks and thieves, as I love to hear Walking Man call the Foundation hacks in the Dept. of Education, SOS risks putting the focus back on themselves, and on why any new platform will not work. You can bet there are a dozen conservative sludge tanks who are already crafting arguments to beat down those points that they know are on the way if the task this coming summer at the Marriott Wardman Park reaches fruition.
The Civil Rights movement did not need a platform, for God's sakes, to wage the battle that would finally bring into the sharpest focus the reality of the injustices and the inhumanity that the American people could no longer ignore, once a concerted and well-conceived series of actions put in their faces every day what they would have preferred to continue to ignore.
Those heroes did not get into a rhetorical pissing match with the George Wallaces of the world. They studied their history, they connected, they exposed the perpetrators through their actions, and they hoped. Not some wishful thinking nonsense, but real hope based on a faith in their own capacities working together against an inhumane and unjust system.
There are a dozen very good blueprints for what sane education looks like. We don't need another one at this juncture to be shot down by the same bad billionaire actors who are out to extend the power of consumer capitalism over children and to block real education.
Occupy's unflinching stand against the corruption and manipulation within the corporate state represents a great example of Cornel West's call for "prophetic thinkers" to discern, connect, track hypocrisy, and to hope. The Occupiers were making known "the gap between principles and practice, between promise and performance, between rhetoric and reality."
The fire hoses are on our children, but it is happening behind the walls where the public cannot see. We are going to have to make such a case that the public will no longer be able to ignore the crimes against children. Will we have to put our asses on the line to do that? You bet.
NYC schools to expand use of Common Core State Standards
Education officials in New York City on Tuesday directed school principals to step up efforts to integrate the Common Core State Standards into next year's instruction. A pilot program this year has some schools using the new standards in math and English classes. Under the guidance for next year, the standards will be further expanded in those subjects and used for some science and social studies as well. The New York Times
We are already so late for this train. . . . The notion of waiting for a summer platform baffles me and makes me realize that corporate power wins because they know how to steamroll ahead.
I wouldn't even make it as complicated as our NCTE Resolution. Using the methods of the echo chamber U. S. Department of Education/National Governors Association/Bill Gates team, that if you repeat something 63 times, it must be true, I'll just say it again:
Platform Item:
Save Our Schools is opposed to the Common Core State Standards funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and forced on the states by Race to the Top bribes administered by the office of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
I would be satisfied that the item stop after the word 'Standards,' but offer the rest for clarity.
Either we are sure about the damage reform is doing or we're not.
Some of us are sure. SOS seems to be unsure.
Perhaps a purity test should be applied to committee members? No corporate folks; no charter folks; only educators. Seems reasonable.
Or you all can continue to send out mixed signals.
I am "this close" to disassociating myself from the "large" SOS tent out of pure frustration (imagine that!).
A partnership between universities, community colleges and K-12 school districts in 30 states is aimed at aligning teacher-preparation programs in secondary mathematics with the new Common Core State Standards. The so-called Mathematics Teacher Education Partnership was announced this week, and already has received a $200,000 grant from the National Science Foundation. Education Week
I was surprised recently when I attended the monthly meeting of a local group that advocates for the rights of teachers, students and parents which, because of their location and the anti immigrant stance of the state government, seems to be more into the plight of Mexican Americans wanting and not getting a quality education for their children. That's fine with me, Mexican American children sure need people to stand up for their education rights in this state. At any rate, I attempted to engage one of the leaders -- who was identified to me as one of the more active k-12 teachers -- in conversation regarding the CCSS and the RTTT testing and teacher-evaluation program. The testing subject did not seem to resonate with her at all -- I got the feeling that she saw so many other real everyday problems (like those having to do with the struggles of ESL students and the combined effect of ESL and poverty) that she classified it as an academic problem, relatively speaking -- but CC was unequivocally a good thing. She saw CC as something that helped her and the newer teachers in developing their day-to-day teaching plans and definitely an improvement of what they had before. It was evident that I was not going to get anywhere generating resistance to testing if I was going to package my arguments with a need to resist CC.
I have spent several hours reading and rereading the exchange regarding SOS and the need to make a definitive rejection of CC. At first, I was convinced that it would be tactically most prudent to come together in opposition to the plan to bubble-test kids’ minds into states where they had totally lost interest in learning and then somehow use test results to evaluate teachers. I figured, stopping or stalling the test-and-evaluate plan had top priority because it is so insidious and that doing so would buy more time for refining problems we had with the CC. I now see understand the depth of your resistance to these standards but I am nowhere near being able to go back to that group of inner-city teachers and make a case for opposing the CC. Telling them that the National Council on Education and the Economy (NCEE) and it's subsidiary America's Choice (now owned by Pearson), Achieve and all of it's corporate sponsors, and ultimately Lumina, ALEC, Gates, etc. were instrumental in developing these standards would not help me. If I am to convince others I have to have the sources to read to obtain a more comprehensive understanding. I would appreciate if someone could give me some references.
Thanks
Another very good introduction to some of the issues around the single imposed curriculum can be found in this web piece by Nel Noddings, (http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/Dkitchen/TE652/noddings.htm) who includes some good references, especially the Michael Apple reference. Noddings makes a compelling case that the one best curriculum for all is the best curriculum for no one.
Here is another from Noddings, which does a nice job going back to summarize the debate between Dewey and Hutchins from the early 20th Century. This is very good at getting to the root differences in philosophy. Just a taste:
Consider the Dewey/Hutchins debates. Both men were avowedly strong advocates of democracy, but Dewey saw conjoint living (speaking, listening, working together) as a way of creating common values and understandings, whereas Hutchins saw common values and understandings as necessary precursors of cooperative (or democratic) life. Hutchins deplored ignorance of the “Graeco-Hebraic tradition,” knowledge of which he claimed was necessary for participation in democratic life." (http://ojs.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/pes/article/viewFile/1706/423)
David Coleman, nor the oligarchs that hired him to put together big chunks of the CC, even acknowledge these basic differences in values and philosophies. The current effort represents an ahistorical and anti-intellectual jamming down of a technocratic process whose advocates do not even understand the implications for people and our educational system, or even the implications for the economy. As diversity is minimized by uni-cultualism, our real abilities to solve real problems is reduced.
I hope other will chip in here with some more recent materials. As you will see, however, this bad idea has been around for a long time. Best to start near the beginning. It will be assurance for you, too, that you understand more on the subject than anyone at the U. S. Department of Education/Gates Foundation.
1. The Common Core is a product of private enterprise calling on very little educator knowledge. Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, much of the development was handled by Achieve, an organization founded by governors and business leaders to further corporate goals in education.
2. David Coleman and Susan Pimentel are credited as 'chief architects' of the Common Core in literacy. She's a lawyer with a long history in consulting. Coleman set up an organization to disseminate his views. He has never taught and has a radical view of teaching not backed by any research or practice. For starters, he says teachers must indoctrinate students with the realization "No one gives a shit what you think." (because this is the way it is in the business world.) This is not a paraphrase. You can go to the NY State Department of Education website and watch his 2-hour presentation.
http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/resources/bringing-the-common-core-to-life.html
You can read a transcript here, but you'll have to put up with my introductory polemics:
http://susanohanian.org/show_research.php?id=437
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given the Coleman enterprise millions. They gave the Hunt Institute more millions to distribute films of Coleman & Pimentel showing teachers how to teach the Common Core way. The G. E. Foundation has just given Coleman enterprises $18 million to align teachers to the Coleman way.
I happen to feel it's very dangerous stuff to pour all this money into forcing everybody into this one way of looking at text. I don't say 'literature' because Coleman insists most of the school day should be spent with nonfiction. . . because nonfiction is where kids learn about the world.
3. The highly regarded Brookings Institute recently issued a report concluding, "Despite all the money and effort devoted to developing the Common Core State Standards--not to mention the simmering controversy over their adoption in several states--the study foresees little to no impact on student learning."
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2012/0216_brown_education_loveless/0216_brown_education_loveless.pdf
4. The purpose of the Common Core curriculum is to serve as a vehicle for the national test. We don't yet know what this test will look like but the two testing consortia keep leaking info that it will be continuous online testing, totally driving the curriculum.
5. Finally, and most important, the Common Core is a deliberate diversionary tactic, getting the public to believe that a standardized curriculum is the key to student success. The truth of the matter is that POVERTY trumps everything. The research on the effects of poverty is plentiful. If we want to solve school problems, we must solve poverty. This is not an excuse; it is a fact. I would suggest reading Richard Rothstein at the Economic Policy Institute on this topic. He has books well worth reading. I'd start with "Class And Schools: Using Social, Economic, And Educational Reform To Close The Black-white Achievement Gap."
Here are a couple of Rothstein articles.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/Whose-Problem-Is-Poverty%C2%A2.aspx
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib286/
Also read Rothstein on the fact that schools AREN'T failing:
http://www.epi.org/blog/reformers-playbook-failing-schools-facts/
"The essential task of brain function is to construct orderly patterns of neural activity from disorderly sensory inputs, so that effective actions can be mounted by the brain, a finite state system, to deal with the world's infinite complexity." Walter J Freeman Department of Molecular & Cell Biology University of California ....
That is, by training the brain to memorize standard approaches to problem solving you are not helping it learn to do what it is designed to do; that is, exclusively teaching standard approaches essentially atrophies the brain.
Is this an important part of what you (we) are saying?
Why can't SOS oppose the standards/tests? The individual principles that SOS officially supports.
Can somebody answer this in a few sentences?
The big question I have is why didn't Mr. Horn talk to Bob George before writing this article and posting it?
The importance of that old adage" know and understand your subject before you write about it" certainly flew out the window in this post. It's something that all good writers have followed, once upon a time.
With Bob's refusal to address the question on the SOS site, he guaranteed that it would appear here. Bob George has been invited to respond here, to engage in a public dialogue, but he has refused.
Bob owes no explanation to me, personally, but he does owe one to ALL the folks who have supported SOS in the past, and the ones who want to support it in the future. I thought I would let him speak for himself. But maybe he is not interested in that, as long as exec buddies continue to carry water for him.
As SOS considers its position on Common Core, do you think there could be an appearance of a conflict of interest by having a Senior VP for Catapult on the Steering Committee that is making that decision?
As I have said before, if Bob George was as concerned about the public perception of SOS as he is about his own agenda, he would have already addressed the issue, rather than parading forward his surrogates to open fire on the messenger.
This is a simple action. If you vote to oppose the common core, it does not mean that you have to go on strike, you don't have to refuse to do anything, you can still work to make life better if the common core is implemented in your school.
The NCTE did not allow our resolution to be voted on by the members of NCTE.
Can we vote on this, by mail, before the meeting? Not everybody will be able to attend the meeting. Not everybody can afford it and people have other pressing obligations.
Rosemarie Jensen 6:06 PM
Here's my two cents having attended the march last summer and Occupy in March/April and been involved in this fight since, I believe, the attack started here in Florida since the late 90s. An apparent conflict of interest is evident. Period. And we have watched others worm their way into our Federal DOE and State DOEs under the cover of wanting to do what is best for children. And they have worked long and patiently to meet their ends. I don't know Bob but it would behoove him to answer the question. Period. I am not an influencial member, just a small voice, and I would NOT approve of my husband consulting with Charter USA when asked because I would not want anyone to question my intent if I should ever play a bigger role or have a larger audience. And it was a huge loss of revenue for our little consulting business.
Second, It seems a no brainer that SOS should be public in it's stance against Common Core. We know what the ultimate goal of that is and it goes against all the previously stated planks.The fact that there are people who are reticent about that concerns me. We aren't here to make friends...we are here to change the course of education policy and history.
Everyone here who has posted I respect and am appreciative of your perspective, but everyone must realize we don't have YOUR experience with Bob and sometimes when something walks like a duck, quack likes a duck, ...it's a duck. He needs to answer the question and there is nothing wrong with asking the question. Instead of getting feathers ruffled, if there is no conflict, it should be an easy question to answer and Bob should understand that. It was very easy for my husband to understand my perspective that his work my jeapardize my legitmacy in a movement I feel so strongly about. There's my two cents for what it's worth.
I think now about all the hours we at Occupy Phoenix have spent discussing issues surrounding whom we should link up with (and still remain true to what we believe) and how we can include everyone (even our online members, some of whom might not be known to all) in our GA deliberations and I can tell you this type of conflict of interest would get 'hands-down' all the way round. It can't be tolerated especially because the reason we all have our backs to the wall like this is because we all accepted lies and deceptions over and over. I speak for myself but I believe that the people at Occupy know that getting the process right and keeping it pure of compromises is most essential. A social movement cannot take such risks of being co-opted.
I thought the original problem had to do with an individual who fights harmful school reform while being employed by a questionable corporation. It seems like this individual is serving two masters. And it is a concern no matter how likable this person is or how hard he works. I have sat in on too many meetings where organizations like Stand for Children preach murky messages to the general public when they have bold intentions to go after public schools. So I can’t help but wonder if this person has ulterior motives. Perhaps he should explain. Why doesn’t he on this blog?
One thing is for sure, SOS will lose members if the message is murky.
A good organization needs a strong platform so the general public understands what it is about and who it is up against. The general public doesn’t always check into these blogs like educators and some parents. The clearer the message the better to reach the general public.
THEN act on the message with action!
Unfortunately, if the message isn’t clear and the platform wishy-washy, which seems to be the case right now, the organization is probably in danger of falling by the wayside. Especially with inside arguing.
Steering board, GET WITH IT! Decide what SOS is about so I know whether or not I want to support you!