On the very day that we finished up our mini-doc on the Garfield teacher MAP test boycott (Stand Up: The Day the Teachers Said No) an op-ed piece appeared in the Seattle TImes written by Education Reformer Michelle Rhee. (We'll pause as you Google her a bit). Her shaky and factually incorrect observations of the boycott, and of the teachers who were participating in this boycott, sent us to the keyboard. Here's what we typed up:
TO: Seattle TImes
FROM: Storyline Research and Productions
DATE: March 6, 2013
RE: A Response to Michelle Rhee opinion piece “MAP boycott is about keeping test scores out of teacher evaluations”
What an interesting coincidence that on the same morning we are uploading our short video documentary on the Garfield teacher’s boycott, we get to read Michelle Rhee’s opinion piece in the Seattle Times (March 6, 2013) on the same topic.
Our purpose in making Stand Up: The Day the Teachers Said No was to talk with and to listen to a few of the teachers involved in this decision. We asked them to tell their stories about how it came about, how they’ve experienced what’s happened along the way, and where they see things going from here. Just a few voices, yes. But thoughtful voices, we think, speaking in full sentences rather than sound bites about the things that they, as professional public school educators, know far more about than we do.
We suspect that a viewer might gather quite a different understanding from this collection of teacher’s voices than a reader might gather from Ms. Rhee’s singular voice. For instance, Ms. Rhee writes that the Garfield teachers have chosen boycott over engaged discussion with Seattle Public School administration on the flaws in the MAP test. But what we heard was that teachers (and students, librarians, staff members and parent groups) have in fact taken their concerns about the MAP test to the SPS administration from early on in the test’s introduction some four years ago, and have continued to seek conversation on the matter since. To little response.
Ms. Rhee suggests that teacher’s unions across the country are “latching on” to what’s happening at Garfield and Seattle schools as a means of “entangling them with a completely separate national debate over using standardized testing as a means of measuring teacher performance.” What we were struck by in sitting with and listening to the teachers, was the central importance of this action having been initiated by teachers alone, and how other interested parties, unions included, are looking to them for leadership. And it was quite clear that the teachers are interested in playing an active role in developing and instituting assessments that actually measure the work they do in the classroom, day in and day out.
Finally, Ms. Rhee writes that the Seattle boycott of the MAP “robs the public of a … meaningful dialogue about how to ensure a high-quality education for every American student.” But what we found in sitting down and talking with the teachers is that their having “said no” to the MAP in this manner has in fact helped to initiate just such a meaningful dialogue on just such a topic as essential as this one. Action, where there was none. Debate, where there was little.
In other words, it seems that the same rhetorical strategy that has driven the Ed Reform Movement and Michelle Rhee’s career as a Reformer does not really “latch on” here. Rather, it serves only to “entangle” the discussion with claims and ideas that do not emerge from the experiences of teaching itself.
We’re not in the habit of thinking that teachers are probably lying when they say that in fact they did attempt to take their concerns with the MAP test to SPS administrators. Or that they see themselves as teaching professionals rather than solely as union members. Or that they welcome the kind of assessment that reflects and actually supports their work in ways that matter to students. Instead, it is likely that most public school teachers are honest, hard-working professionals trying to do the nearly impossible every day.
Just ask them.
TO: Seattle TImes
FROM: Storyline Research and Productions
DATE: March 6, 2013
RE: A Response to Michelle Rhee opinion piece “MAP boycott is about keeping test scores out of teacher evaluations”
What an interesting coincidence that on the same morning we are uploading our short video documentary on the Garfield teacher’s boycott, we get to read Michelle Rhee’s opinion piece in the Seattle Times (March 6, 2013) on the same topic.
Our purpose in making Stand Up: The Day the Teachers Said No was to talk with and to listen to a few of the teachers involved in this decision. We asked them to tell their stories about how it came about, how they’ve experienced what’s happened along the way, and where they see things going from here. Just a few voices, yes. But thoughtful voices, we think, speaking in full sentences rather than sound bites about the things that they, as professional public school educators, know far more about than we do.
We suspect that a viewer might gather quite a different understanding from this collection of teacher’s voices than a reader might gather from Ms. Rhee’s singular voice. For instance, Ms. Rhee writes that the Garfield teachers have chosen boycott over engaged discussion with Seattle Public School administration on the flaws in the MAP test. But what we heard was that teachers (and students, librarians, staff members and parent groups) have in fact taken their concerns about the MAP test to the SPS administration from early on in the test’s introduction some four years ago, and have continued to seek conversation on the matter since. To little response.
Ms. Rhee suggests that teacher’s unions across the country are “latching on” to what’s happening at Garfield and Seattle schools as a means of “entangling them with a completely separate national debate over using standardized testing as a means of measuring teacher performance.” What we were struck by in sitting with and listening to the teachers, was the central importance of this action having been initiated by teachers alone, and how other interested parties, unions included, are looking to them for leadership. And it was quite clear that the teachers are interested in playing an active role in developing and instituting assessments that actually measure the work they do in the classroom, day in and day out.
Finally, Ms. Rhee writes that the Seattle boycott of the MAP “robs the public of a … meaningful dialogue about how to ensure a high-quality education for every American student.” But what we found in sitting down and talking with the teachers is that their having “said no” to the MAP in this manner has in fact helped to initiate just such a meaningful dialogue on just such a topic as essential as this one. Action, where there was none. Debate, where there was little.
In other words, it seems that the same rhetorical strategy that has driven the Ed Reform Movement and Michelle Rhee’s career as a Reformer does not really “latch on” here. Rather, it serves only to “entangle” the discussion with claims and ideas that do not emerge from the experiences of teaching itself.
We’re not in the habit of thinking that teachers are probably lying when they say that in fact they did attempt to take their concerns with the MAP test to SPS administrators. Or that they see themselves as teaching professionals rather than solely as union members. Or that they welcome the kind of assessment that reflects and actually supports their work in ways that matter to students. Instead, it is likely that most public school teachers are honest, hard-working professionals trying to do the nearly impossible every day.
Just ask them.
RSS Feed