The New York Times's "Misunderstanding" of Corporate Education Reform

Two months ago the New York Times published a feature story reporting (with apparent fright) growing opposition to education reform in Democratic states.  At the time I derided this as the Times's version of "late-breaking news" because this development has been growing for a couple of years at least.  I should clarify that by "education reform" I mean the current variety, which has been conceived and funded by billionaires like Bill Gates, Mike Bloomberg, Eli Broad and Rupert Murdoch.  Its central tenets seem to be endless high-stakes commercial testing, the final destruction of developing kids' curiosity in favor of test prep, the privatization of schools through the use of charters, destruction of teacher unions, and the replacement of teachers themselves with low-cost (and ill-trained) temps through programs like Teach for America.

Who could possibly oppose such noble aims?  The Murdoch-owned New York Post describes this program, with its implicit war of all against all, as "the civil rights movement of the 21st Century."  They even had the colossal hubris to describe a big rally in Albany by charter schools as the equivalent of the Selma March.  We are supposed to forget that Alabama Governor George Wallace violently opposed (literally) the Selma March; he did not speak alongside Martin Luther King in favor of voting rights as Andrew Cuomo spoke in favor of charter schools alongside Eva Moskowitz at the Albany, New York rally.  We are supposed to forget that the Alabama State Police and sheriff's posse viciously attacked the Selma marchers with truncheons and knotted ropes; they did not protect them as the New York State Police did the Eva Moskowitz rallygoers.  And we are supposed to forget that the Selma marchers knew they were risking their lives by supporting voting rights.  The original purpose of the march was to carry the murdered corpse of Jimmie Lee Jackson's to the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery.  Eva Moskowitz's supporters were given paid bus rides to Albany, the children were their in lieu of school attendance, the teachers were ordered to be present.

The Times has not engaged in such bizarre fabrications.  What the Times has done is probably more insidious.  It has played along with Arne Duncan's claims that the test refusals are by middle-class parents who choose to opt their children out of an unpleasant experience, making the resistance analogous to parents who refuse vaccination of their children.  They have failed utterly to report on the fact that teachers are not allowed to see itemized breakdowns of their students' results, which alone makes assessment worthwhile.  They have failed to report that these tests are treated as trade secrets.  They have failed to report on the children who used to love school and now hate it.  They have even avoided discussing some of the stranger test questions, like the talking eggplant, which came out because the kids didn't understand that they were bound by a gag order.

The Times has avoided discussing the replacement of experienced teachers with the five-week wonders of Teach for America in a number of cities, especially Chicago, New Orleans and Newark.  Instead it discusses the enthusiasm of the Corps Members and the challenges they face.  That is all true, but it is easier for a Times editor to identify with those young temps than it is with the parents of kids who never get an experienced teacher.  If TFA is so great, why don't the parents at Horace Mann and Trinity beg for them to teach their kids?

The Times has reported -- slowly and belatedly -- on the fact that charter schools don't get better overall results than public schools.  But they have resisted reporting on the way many charters cheat on their lotteries.  They have resisted reporting on the large number of children, especially boys, who are forced out of the charters.  And they have avoided altogether reporting on the horror that is "zero tolerance" or "no excuses":  children suspended for slouching, for looking around the room, for failing to keep a silent and perfect line in the halls.

Opposition to all this comes from both left and right.  Some of it is ideologically motivated, or narrowly political: Obama is for this so I am opposed.  But most of the opposition has to do with these three simple ideas:

1. Children deserve to learn, explore and create.
2. Children deserve teachers who are experienced, trained and committed.
3. Our communities deserve public education.

The New York Times pretends that none of this exists.  The Times pretends that opponents of corporate reform don't care about poor kids.  The Times wants to portray this opposition as a movement of the lunatic right, with maybe some union hacks who want to protect their jobs.

The Times is not confused.  The Times is engaging in a big propaganda job.  The Times Corporation is allied with the other media giants like Pearson Education and Murdoch's News Corporation who stand to make gigantic profits out of this "reform".  The Times lies.