-Arthur Goldstein blogs at NYC Educator.
Hillary Clinton opened her mouth the other day, and said she wouldn’t keep open any school that wasn’t better than average. She later clarified to say she meant good, rather than better than average. To me, that was not much of a distinction. I work in a good school, but I don’t delude myself that it’s because we are all super teachers. I’d say it’s because we have super kids, and that any school with such kids can do well. Just ask Geoffrey Canada, who had to dismiss entire cohorts to make himself look good. Ask Eva Moskowitz, with her got to go list.
For anyone who hasn’t noticed, there is a direct correlation between high poverty, high needs, and low test scores. Kids like the ones I serve are a drag on any school, because it turns out people who don’t know English tend to score poorly on standardized tests in English. Perhaps one day someone will do a study and prove it, and we’ll all be amazed. Until then, schools dominated by ELLs will be targeted. For example there was the one in Rhode Island, where they wanted to fire all the teachers. Obama and Duncan thought that was fantastic. (If I recall correctly, the teachers were kept on, but under worse working conditions. Another victory for the reformies.)
Despite this explanation in Diane Ravitch’s blog, and the convoluted story to which it links, I cannot rationalize this as Hillary having misspoken. While the feds don’t directly close schools, they’ve had massive influence in school closings anyway. For Hillary to even utter such a sentence indicates to me that she has drunk deeply of the reformy Kool-Aid that says teachers and schools are to blame. She does not seem to have read Ravitch or considered what this reformy movement is all about. It also kind of dashes my hopes that she will advocate for a rational teacher evaluation system. The fact that Eli Broad contributes to her gives me even more pause.
Read the entire post here.