Public Schools Are Not Negotiable

"I'm not opting my kids out of testing again this year to bring focus to the tests. I'm doing it to take away the data from the advocates of choice and privatization. I'm saying NO! You will not use my kids in your attack on public schools. You will not use my kids to dismantle the entire public school system." -- Me.

"Cant we all just along?" "Don't we want a "big tent?" "Shouldn't we be "inclusive?" Yes. Sometimes. But there are moments when some issues must remain divisive.

My ultimate goal as an advocate for public schools is to make sure that the institution (American public education) survives the ruthless attack by market-based reformers that only have an interest in taking advantage of the money that remains locked up in the public system of education. Make no mistake about my position. Market-based reforms being pushed by a crowd of people unfamiliar with teaching and learning are trying to destroy the American public school system. And if they succeed democracy will soon follow. If public education is dismantled our last barrier to free thought will be gone. This is a horrible prospect. Therefore, a group of committed advocates has decided that "opting out" of state testing is a way to save public schools.

In less than a week, United Opt Out has recruited over 600 members, developed a website, created a Twitter account, launched a blog campaign. And somehow managed to irritate "choice" advocates who also want to end high stakes testing.

You might wonder how the same objective -- ending high stakes tests -- can be met with disagreement. I mean, shouldn't we take this momentum and target "big testing," Democrats for Education Reform, Bill Gates, and Arne Duncan? Maybe. Maybe not. You see, it is possible to have the same objective but have an entirely different goal. Ending high stakes testing is an objective for United Opt Out. Ultimately, our goal is to take back public schools from advocates for a "choice" based system of education. However, according to some of the advocates for "choice," they would like to join with United Opt Out because of their hatred of standardized tests.

United Opt Out is not promoting "opting out" as a form of civil disobedience to just stop standardized testing. We are targeting testing and the misuse of the data testing provides because these are the weapons being used by market-based corporate reformers to dismantle the public school system. We want to Save Our Schools and give them back to the students, teachers, and Parents Across America. However, it seems that some "choice" advocates would like to end standardized testing as a way to show their distrust of government intrusion into the education of their children. They are advocates for a "choice" based system of education. This is an unacceptable end game and joining forces makes absolutely no sense.

United Opt Out has been specific enough and has said that parents, homeschoolers, teachers, students and even Klingons are all welcome as long as it is understood that our passion is being directed at state tests because the tests and the data are the tools being used by corporate reformers to dismantle public schools. We are not focused on opting out to further the cause of more choice -- which will ultimately lead to privatization.

I do respect a parent's right to direct the education of their children. However, when they advocate a "choice" movement and market-based reforms to take the place of a system of public education, my tolerance evaporates. When it comes to schooling in America, if you do not see a thriving, community-based public school system situated within diverse settings then "we can't get along," "there is no room in the tent," and "you are not included."

"And that is what so scares those of us who see traditional public schools as vital to democracy: that they will become repositories for the poorest, most troubled children." -- Michael Winerip.

 

Follow Timothy D. Slekar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/slekar

Comments

[BLAngert]

11:59 PM on 09/02/2011

Dearest Timothy D. Slekar and victoriayoung . . .
I believe, observe, and experience neither of your thoughts negates the other. For me, what is most essential is that we learn from each other. Corporations, or at least the ways in which they more than successfully sell a message, a product such as private and charter schools, could, if we were open to learning, teach us tons! Parents, pupils, the public are profound Professors, if only Educators open their eyes and ears, more so their hearts to these terrific Teachers!!!!

When pained and fearful [angry] Teachers embrace what they characterize as “righteous anger” Moms, Dads, Granma and Grandpa flee. Why would anyone wish to support someone, or some action, that does not seem to support him or her?

For me, “us against them” alienates all!!!!! Corporation and Marketers do not use messages that divide. The rhetoric speaks to empathy. “Students First.” “Save Great Teachers.” “Our mission is to build a national movement to defend the interests of children in public education and pursue transformative reform, so that America has the best education system in the world.” To succeed in our mission, we're working with parents, teachers, administrators, and citizens across the country to ensure [quotes surround words in bold] “great teachers,” access to “great schools,” and “effective use of public dollars””. . . These words are Brilliant. Each Builds a Bridge and a Bond.

Save Our Schools says “As concerned citizens, “We Demand" end destructive policies/rhetoric

[dloitz]

01:23 AM on 09/02/2011

You are misleading why you pushed people out of the opt out group. Choice is very much different from Market driven. Saving Public Schools as you say will do nothing if we continue using the broken model that is outdated and honestly not worth saving in the current form.

I am only for a public network of learning funded by the public and not for businesses to come in and take over.

I think communities, parents and student in partnership with teachers should be in control of schools and should be opening them and driving them.

They was never a good old days of Public education, it has always been used in one way or another to shape the needs and wants of the ruling class. They are just being more up front about it now.
Not one person banned from the Opt out group wanted to destroy public education, they wanted to transform it.

We need a new public system, it can be funded the exact same way, but it needs to look vastly different, that is all anyone banned said and bears repeating... the test is just the first step in transforming education... Learning has changed and it looks noting like desks and school bells and tests and grades and worksheets and finite days and time to learn. Lets not just opt out of the test lets opt out of outdated model of public education.

[Alice Flarend]

01:52 PM on 09/02/2011

I agree that there was never a time when everyone thought public schools were perfect. There was never a time when everyone thought ANYTHING was perfect- that's a perk of a free society. However why do you assume the old system of schooling is so broken? What are your hard peer reviewed studies?
You say we need a new system...so what should the "new" system look like? Most studies show that charter schools and homeschools offer no improvement beyond that expected by socioeconomic status. I agree that public schools can always be improved, mostly by increasing teacher autonomy and time for collaborative coherent planning, but I do not agree that they are completely broken.

[dloitz]

10:40 PM on 09/02/2011

yes your right is doing exactly want it was invented to do, give a few a chance to succeed and many more the chance to just get through it so they can get on with there life. They are both peer reviewed study and loads of evidence that there are better ways to go about educating our kids. Charters are not than public school, because many of them look exactly the same. Plus yes if we want to use studies that use data from test than yes not much different or better. Yet aren't we trying to get rid of the test. I think a little historical perspective on testing should be added to this article, testing did not destroy public school or the system is merely part the problem. The test was original used as a way to bring by equity and justice in to school, and yes it failed and continues to limit learning, but the system was broken before it.

We need more learner and learning autonomy, not vouchers, but students need real choice of how and why they learn.

There are lots of great schools in this country and even more great learning communities, but the majority of schools still teach the way we taught in 1950, the world has changed, school needs to also.

We have moved the deck chairs around enough, let the learners create the system in partnership with people who want to spend their lives helping others learn.

[Michele Gray]

01:18 PM on 09/01/2011

The coupling of the term "choice" with "market-based" when releted to public education is misleading, in my experience. We are told that more "choices" are good. But we also know that when companies merges, the argument to stockholders is that by eliminating duplication and streamlining, the new company will be more economically efficient, better at meeting consumer needs and more profitable.

So instead of building and staffing a whole new charter school which offers more foreign languages, for example, in addition to math, chemistry, history and english, why not simply hire an additional teacher at the existing public school? If parents want their child to have extra time in school learning why not, simply hire an additional staff to run early morning or after school study groups instead of building and staff whole new charter school with longer hours?

The lesson that "reformers" should be learning from the "Market" is that resources and capital should be invested in the existing system that has proven it works when adequately funded rather than being drained away to reinvent with wheel, so to speak, especially at a time when more and more questions are being raised about the effectiveness of charter schools across the country.

[victoriayoung]

04:16 PM on 09/02/2011

I like this idea, Michele. I'm hearing you say "if parents want..." and that really should have been the lesson learned from the popularity of "charters. Schools that address the needs and desires of the people they will serve are seen as desirable. Those that ignore "needs," and the people speaking for them, leave parents no other "choice" but to walk away if they can.

My preferred "choice" would have been to participate fully in improving the schools that my children attended. That wasn't possible. There's something very wrong with a system that doesn't give parents that choice. http://supportingpubliceducation.yolasite.com

[Timothy D. Slekar]

05:13 PM on 09/02/2011

But isn't that also the problems with charters today. The idea that "parents want" was stolen by corporate reformers and then exploited to get access the money tied up in public schools. Instead of delivering schools that parents and neighborhoods desired we got schools run on efficiency models that were never designed to make teaching and learning an experience in lifelong learning. Instead they used the idea of choice to mislead parents to support their takeover and instead of delivering 5th avenue they gave parents Wal-Mart.