Mr. Richard Whitmire wrote this thought-provoking piece on Huffington Post about the increasingly bitter tone of the Education Reform Debate. My full response follows:
Dear Mr. Whitmire,
Your impartiality in this article is greatly appreciated and deserving of commendation. In my opinion, this is the proper role of education journalists. The dissension from professional educators stems from the fact that most of these writers have never set foot inside a classroom, yet are given incredibly powerful platforms to shape the education discussion. The piece you have written here rightly takes on a position of open-minded inquisitiveness rather than all-knowing dogmatism. If more education writers reflected this attitude I believe the debate could proceed in a much more civilized manner.
Unfortunately, Ms. Ripley did not take the same attitude in the Atlantic piece. I’m disappointed but not surprised at the harsh feedback she received. She made a number of overbroad statements like "teachers are almost never dismissed" and "principals almost never give teachers poor performance evaluations." No data was included to support this conclusion but it was presented it as if it were a matter of fact. She also juxtaposed the highly effective TFA teacher with a largely ineffective non-TFA teacher as if the latter is the norm. These assertions simply aren’t true of any district I have ever taught in.
TFA has actually gone on record as saying that they would like to build better relationships with traditional teachers so this unnecessarily antagonistic approach was not only statistically flawed but also politically outdated.
What's more is that she seems to have written the piece to build support for TFA's accomplishments but this really isn’t her place as a journalist. Furthermore it’s unnecessary. There are examples of outstanding TFA teachers just as there are many outstanding traditional teachers. The media doesn't need to hold either group on a pedestal. Education journalists must uphold the ethical integrity of their craft by maintaining neutrality. I hope that if Ms. Ripley continues to write about these issues she will follow your example.
I would also caution against oversimplifying the debate in terms of “Education Reformers” versus “The Teachers’ Unions.” I’m a member of my local affiliate of the NEA because of the legal protection and outstanding professional development they provide. I do not necessarily agree with every political stance the national organization espouses. This is analogous to saying that because I pay federal taxes, I agree with every law enacted by Congress.
I also live in a right-to-work state that specifically prohibits collective bargaining so we’re not even organized as a union here, rather as a professional association. I obviously have very different motivations than a national labor union fighting for its very survival against a tidal wave of anti-union sentiment driven entirely by our country’s precarious economic position.
This push to further economically disenfranchise teachers who are already sacrificing so much has no place in theoretical education journalism and is best left to true economic empiricists. Framing the debate in these terms of “reformers” vs. “unions,” implicitly and unfairly ascribes this dogfight to educators and only serves to further victimize and suppress the voices of those who clearly care about our children the most.
I hope this small suggestion is received with the good faith in which it is given. Your article was really quite refreshing and hopefully represents a turning point in the debate. I thank you for your open-mindedness in exploring this vexing issue and I hope more education writers will follow your impressive lead.
Yours in service,
Kelle Stewart, J.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment