Reactions to Obama's education speech

Harsh reactions, from people who know something about schools.

First up, via Education Notes Online, is San Franciscan Caroline Grannan:

"Boy, is President Obama confused. ...

"And what’s with the praise of charter schools, President Obama? Charter schools have been around for 16 years now. Some are great, some are disasters and the rest are all along the range in between – just like traditional public schools. As has been amply documented, charter schools overall do not outperform traditional public schools, despite having numerous advantages over them (including massive financial bounty from billionaire private philanthropists and the avid support of a series of public-school-disparaging presidents)."

NYC Educator has come to "despise" Obama, aka President "Merit Pay":

"I just finished grading 105 college essays written by my juniors. Can I tell you how many of those essays were about alcoholism, child abuse, sexual abuse, sickness, mental/emotional illness and other horrific things these kids have to endure every day? And now President Merit Pay wants to add another hour or two a day to their schedules because he thinks that will help them become better educated?"

And speaking of poverty, Tauna Rogers points to a report by Arizona State's David Berliner, who argues that

"... out-of-school factors related to poverty are the major cause of the achievement gap that exists between poor and minority students and the rest of the student population."

So why then is Obama scapegoating teachers and traditional public schools?  Maybe it's because, as Leonie Haimson writes, "Obama’s education advisers seem to be free-market nudniks."

(I don't know what a "nudnik" is, but I get the free market reference.  Well said Leonie!)

And that brings me to the most scathing criticism of Obama's education policy, from Tom Eley on the World Socialist Web Site.  (And what's with that?  I thought Obama was the "socialist'?)

Eley says:

"It was an ugly little speech, saturated with jingoism, free market boosterism, and moral hectoring. Obama offered not so much as a nod to the classical, universalistic, understanding of education—the cultivation of young minds in the arts and sciences toward a fuller, richer life in the service of society and humanity as a whole.

"Instead for Obama, 'the future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens.' The purpose of education is to prepare a new generation of hyper-exploited, but patriotic, workers. According to Obama, the educational system needs 'to prepare every child, everywhere in America, to out-compete any worker, anywhere in the world.' "

Eley goes on to say:

"...the humanities—art, music, literature, and history—'don't' matter' in the competition with other nations. Indeed, by developing critical, cultured human beings, the arts tend to cut against the wretched labor competition Obama champions."

 

As I said, harsh criticism, indeed.  And from my perspective, well 'merited' criticism.

Comments

[Harry Kershner]

"An Obama presidency...will likely sever the last threads of any connection between notions of racial disparity and structurally reproduced inequality rooted in political economy...the recent outpouring of enthusiastic support from all quarters...for his attacks on black poor people underscores the likelihood that Obama will be even more successful than Clinton at selling punitive, regressive and frankly racist social policies as humane anti-poverty initiatives." (Adolph Reed, Jr., Where Obamaism Seems to be Going)

[marcia]

Someone needs to send Obama a copy of the Shock Doctrine.

[Harry Kershner]

Obama and all the other DP/RP elites already know about the shock doctrine, since they are the ones who do the shocking. This is why I never suggest that anyone should "speak truth to power". Power always knows; it's the rest of us who need the truth to be told.

[trueblue]

Obama is taking on the teacher's unions. Good for him!! Some of the teachers' turf protecting is standing in the way of needed school reforms.

[Terry]

Which reforms, Blue?

Merit pay is no reform. Nor are charter schools. The union opposes both of those, and that's a good thing.

Or how about testing for accountability? The union isn't entirely opposed to that, although almost all teachers hate teaching to the test which is what testing for accountability comes down to.

The only reform I can think of that the unions oppose has to do with teacher transfers to low income schools. And that's an entirely negotiable issue.

[trueblue]

Terry, how do you defend your contention that a true merit pay system would not be an important reform? Also, you concede that the union opposes charter schools, which is indeed a significant reform movement. Saying that black is white is not much of an argument.

[Terry]

I don't know what a "true" merit pay system is, or how it might differ from tying teacher pay to the test scores a worthy teacher might wring from her students. Please clarify.

As for characterizing charter schools as "significant reform", the burden of proof is with you, Blue. All of the studies that I've read show little difference between charters and traditional neighborhood schools.

The one marked difference is that charters typically cater to a wealthier student demographic. Is that the reform you want?