Paranoid inferences aren't an argument

Jamie Hollin wrote a piece that has several factual inaccuracies, a lot of unsupported assertions, and quite a few paranoid inferences. Below are selected responses. Another post deals specifically with rural charter schools.

****

First, on the big fundraising totals in the school board races...

So Margaret Dolan smashed fundraising records in a school board race. I noted in a previous post that Dolan was a talented businesswoman with deep connections in the community. Is anyone surprised that she's good at her job? Isn't her prowess at attracting support evidence that she possesses the leadership traits necessary to be an effective board member?

Likewise, the fact that Elissa Kim, Will Pinkston, and Jared DeLozier raised a bunch of money by school board standards is more of a testament to the seriousness of their respective campaigns. One hundred and sixteen people donated to Kim, for instance. That's not dominance by a single PAC -- that's widespread support (and, I also note, from a whole bunch of people in Nashville -- including my wife and me, who live in District 5).

Modern politics involves a bunch of money. Don't hate the player; hate the game.

Hollin feels differently:

Our public school system in Nashville is for sale—and the price being offered is pretty high. Great amounts of money—heretofore never contemplated in MNPS school board races—is coming from far and wide to enable their like-minded followers to take over public schools in Nashville.

Upset about rich people being influential in politics? In related news, the sky is blue and the Cubs won't win the World Series. Rich people have been politically active since time immemorial. People with money have disproportionate influence in politics. It is what it is.

What interests me more is what said rich people are doing with their money. I get concerned when they're spending millions to build Ensworth High School or starting yet another K-12 private school in Donelson or Madison. Those are massive educational investments that most of Nashville's children will not be able to take advantage. Feel how you like about Great Hearts (my thoughts are complicated and off-topic), but it does represent a desire for affluent and middle-class parents to keep their kids in public schools*. And it will have to follow the same lottery admission procedures that all other charter schools do -- that's a major step for keeping kids out because their parents can't afford a $10k or $20k tuition.

The investments by hundreds of people in the campaigns of Dolan, Kim, DeLozier and Pinkston show that there's political will to keep families in Nashville by increasing the quality of all schools and offering real choices instead of the "one size fits all" model that has been failing most of students for decades.

I, for one, support electing "like-minded followers" of people who want to increase student achievement and offer families more and better options.

****

Second, on belittling education reform and school choice....

Hollin again:

Let there be no doubt: the buzz words “reform” and “choice” have been kid tested and mother approved. It’s time for profiteers to strike while the iron is hot. There’s too much taxpayer subsidy for private gain with socialized losses to avoid. They can’t help themselves. I am not even mad at them. Many of them are great people, I am sure.

Charter schools in Tennessee are nonprofit. It's the law. If you want to know who is profiting off public schools, look at the budget and see the massive investments in remedial computer programs and reading intervention curriculum because 58.8 percent of our K-8 students score basic or below basic in reading. Those computer programs and reading intervention curriculum are made by for-profit companies.

An alternate conclusion is that about 70 percent of our schools' graduates don't have the skills to make it at the next level. Hence the need to "reform" our district schools and offer public school parents "choice" as to the school that best suits the needs of their children.

If Hollin is tired of hearing these "buzz words" then let's do the hard work necessary to radically increase student achievement and then he won't have to hear people saying them.

****

Third, on inferring that people who work to change our schools for the better are actually controlled by nefarious privatizers who wish to cannibalize public education....

Hollin: 

No matter how nice candidates are, how long or how little they’ve lived in the community, whether their kids go to public school or not, whether they work for a company already receiving public tax dollars through contracts, how brilliant they may be, who they’ve worked for or with in the past, or who endorsed their candidacy, the ultimate goal of the monied-interests behind them is privatization. And, there’s lots of money to be made in privatization.

I like the "no matter how nice..." beginning. So those of us who've dedicated our professional lives to improving educational opportunities for low-income kids have actually been tools of the Koch brothers. No matter what we do, it's all for naught because it violates Hollin's idea of how public education should work. And, apparently, public education has been working so well in this country that any attempt to make significant change is a stalking horse for "monied interests." Good to know...

Seriously, stuff like this just irks me. This year is my seventh in reforming public education the hard way -- by working with kids who've been screwed by the system Hollin doesn't think needs radical change. Mr. Hollin, you're more than welcome to join me. One small warning: you won't make much money in this business. (My salary is public record, so check it out if you'd like.) Then again, you'll be working so hard that you won't have time to spend much money, so it balances out.

****

Fourth, on teachers who commit two years to working in a low-income school....

Hollin: 

We are only one family. A family convinced there are local solutions to local problems. We are a team in our house and the decision has been made, for us at least, to send the boys to public schools. The teachers, principal, and school will become components in our kids’ educational attainment. Among other things, we want a teacher who has been in the classroom before, not one serving a two-year stint while building their résumé for another career. Do I believe there are great charter operators? Yes. Do I believe there are bad charter operators? Yes. Similarly, there are good and bad public schools. Yet, I am not willing to completely dismantle the public school system in Nashville like the individuals and groups supporting these candidates are so hell-bent to achieve. 

I'm glad Hollin is committed to our public schools. So am I. I'm glad he's going to be an involved parent. We need more of them. I'm glad he recognizes the success of schools like KIPP, LEAD, STEM, Nashville Prep, and Liberty Collegiate.

I find it ironic that an attorney is criticizing people choosing to leave the classroom after two years to do things like...becoming an attorney.

That aside, let's deal with some facts:

Those TFA corps members Hollin is disparaging are higher performing than any other group of new teachers in Tennessee.

The sad thing is studies show most teachers leave the profession in five years. New teachers who struggle in a difficult school last less than two years. TFA corps members actually lengthen the average stay of all new teachers in low-income settings.

Many more TFA teachers -- myself, my wife, Elissa Kim, to name a few -- stay in the classroom longer than two years. Sixty percent of all corp members remain in education and TFA is aggressively promoting staying longer than two years. Practicing what he preaches, the former executive director of TFA NYC is actually headed back to the classroom this year.

Finally, a bit of opinion: one can build up a resumé in many ways. Teaching any amount of time in a classroom serving low-income students is incredibly hard way. Those who choose to follow that path shouldn't be condescended to by those who haven't walked in their shoes.

****

There's a reasoned discussion to have about the direction of our public schools. We have hard choices to make about accountability, how much to invest in new schools, and how to attract great teachers to our classrooms and support them with the best principals and professional development.

Those choices shouldn't be confused with paranoid inferences about the "liquidation" of our public schools.

Take a deep breath. It's a school board election.


* Charter schools are public schools, charter teachers get a public pension, we use a lottery system open to all to determine admittance, and it would be illegal for us to discriminate against students who have special needs.

** 8:36 a.m. update: Fixed a small grammatical error and also recognized my friends at STEM Prep, who also kicked butt this year.