Spooky! Beware of Scripted Education Debates…

October 27, 2015

How can you tell that the 2015 election is coming, and the 2016 one is not far off? By counting all of the anti-union opinion pieces and editorials floating around, of course.

Case in point: the Sunday, October 25 Opinion section of the Minneapolis StarTribune prominently featured a rail against “fundamentalist” teachers unions and their allies, written by former fundamentalist (by birth, we are told) and current “progressive” proponent of education reform, Lynnell Mickelsen.

Mickelsen’s piece, titled “Political rigidity? The left has it too,” seeks to rip teachers unions and the Democrats that support them–unquestioningly, of course–for, yawn, being, double yawn, opposed to anything that challenges their union-loving worldview. 

Still awake? Good, there’s more.

Mickelsen stirringly provides a list of why teachers union supporters (because that’s what they are, of course–nothing more, nothing less) are like fundamentalists. Mostly, it boils down to this: teachers unions and their blind followers are narrow-minded and simplistic, hate change, are old and racist, and will do anything to destroy charter schools.

Here’s an example, from Mickelsen’s piece (capitalization pattern is hers):

“Teachers’ unions are basically claiming Public Schools Are Between A Union and Its District, so any change in this tradition — i.e., charter schools — is an attempt to destroy public education.”

Mickelsen, who is an entertaining writer and a fellow education and school board meeting devotee, also decries the way Minnesota’s state teachers union, Education Minnesota, shamelessly funds Democratic candidates and thus exercises mind control over the party faithful:

Education Minnesota is the largest contributor to Democratic candidates and causes. It sets the tone and parameters of our education debates, which, among elected Democrats, are now predictably rigid and scripted — and this concerns a program that consumes 42 percent of the state’s operating budget, affects hundreds of thousands of children and has shamefully racialized results.

Speaking of “predictably rigid and scripted” education debates, Mickelsen’s piece originally showed up on former U.S. Department of Education employee Peter Cunningham’s blog, Education Post.

Education Post was launched just one year ago, with an impressive $12 million in cold, hard, conversation-starting cash. The goal? Providing a space, funded by old billionaire white guys like Eli Broad, to have a “better” conversation about education and how it should be done for poor children of color.

The bummer? It has since struggled to attract readers, leading Cunningham to recently send an email blast to his supporters, advising them on how to Tweet together and otherwise act as a united front:

When we all start sharing together more consistently, we’ll send a strong signal to our followers and friends, the media and the blogosphere, that we want to see more stories that show the positive difference we are making in the lives of children.

There it is! The “sharing together more consistently” thing! Just a few days before Mickelsen’s piece comparing union supporters to fundamentalists hit the fan, Cunningham published a near replica, called “The Best Hope for Teachers Unions is…Reform.”

Cunningham’s pro-“get tough” reform piece appeared on both his Huffington Post site and on Education Post, in a coordinated campaign sort of way.

I’m not sure if the two were comparing notes, but Cunningham’s piece strongly resembles Micklesen’s. Or maybe it’s the other way around. In any case, both pieces harp on remarkably similar (and familiar) points of view: charter schools are amazing, teachers unions are toxic and antiquated, and school choice is the yellow brick road to redemption.

Cunningham’s piece nicely sets the union-bashing stage for Mickelsen’s, through claims such as these:

Charter opponents like to label education leaders who are empowering families’ right to choose as “privatizers.” In their dictionary, public means “union-controlled” and any variation is the enemy.

And here is a similar snippet from Mickelsen’s piece:

In the union narrative, reformers aren’t just wrong about educational policy — they must have evil intent. So reformers are typically cast as vague “corporatists” hellbent on the equally vague profiteering from or privatizing of public schools.

Okay, I’m starting to see a rigid, scripted debate forming….

Here’s another tidbit from Cunningham’s post:

Teacher unions, who need unionized teachers and dues in order to exist, are fighting desperately to convince parents to stay with the traditional, district-run schools. But rather than appealing to parents on the strength of the education that traditional schools offer, their strategy primarily focuses on limiting funding for charters,capping their growth or organizing their teachers to join a union.

To quote Mickelsen’s piece, “I could keep listing common traits, but you get the idea.”

In short, unions are really, really bad, charter schools are really, really good, and anyone who disagrees with either of these points of view is a “fundie” not worth listening to.

In contrast, here are a couple of paragraphs worth considering, from New York professor Christopher Bonastia’s 2015 article, “The Racist History of the Charter School Movement”:

By all appearances, charters will remain on the educational landscape for the foreseeable future. While charter skeptics can’t merely wish them away, they can push for greater accountability—after all, isn’t this the whole point of charters? Anyone who blindly accepts that competition will improve education for students in charters and traditional public schools alike should remember that other articles of faith about the market—like cutting taxes on the rich will make all of our yachts and rafts rise—have proven illusory.

…There is no magic elixir that will fix our educational system. Of course, we should continue to be open to fresh ideas about improving school organization, teaching and learning. But if we continue to ignore important historical lessons about the dangerous consequences of educational privatization and fail to harness our desire to plunge headlong into unproven reform initiatives, we may discover that the cure we so lovingly embraced has made the patient sicker.

I am neither union nor charter school funded, so please consider donating to keep this blog rolling! Your support is crucial and much appreciated.

[Exq_ppd_form]

8 thoughts on “Spooky! Beware of Scripted Education Debates…

  1. Thank you, Sarah, for calling out Mickelsen’s piece for what it is. Mickelsen has been a teacher union basher for many years (see the Mpls Issues list) even though she always mentions that once upon a time a long time ago she was a liberal union supporter, which apparently came after her fun mentalist days. Mickelsen is one a one trick pony – she only knows how to bash teacher unions and promote charters. She never says anything about the myriad of other issues that are crucial to education both public, private, and pseudo-private (charter.)

  2. How much do you suppose Peter Cunningham pays folks like Minneapolis reformers like Lynnell Mickelsen, Chris Stewart? Must be a fair amount, neither of them seem to actually have jobs, other than to meet with the Minnesota Comeback types.

  3. Oh yes…this is a fine response…
    Michelson’s statements about charter’s being more successful than traditional public schools has continually been disproven by the beloved data she so loves and insists on. There is clearly collusion in some form among these folks. What encourages me is the support for neighborhood public schools in so many of our cities. Read The Prize by Dale Russakoff. New book on the attempt to take over Newark schools…excellent expose of what can happen. Thanks for your piece, Sarah.

  4. I thought that the union is an authorizer of charter schools. In fact doesn’t the MFT union authorize Mill City Charter School for grades 9-12. If that is so, then Mickelson is saying that what. This contradicts her depiction of the union. which to me would imply she knows not what she says and she is not accurate in her statements.

    1. There is a charter authorizer called The Guild. Louise Sundin is chair, and Lynn Nordgren, current MFT president is the vice-chair.

      The Guild is NOT an organization this Minneapolis teacher is proud of. The Guild has opened six charter schools to date, and none of them are union. One of the charters has recently closed (within mere weeks of opening): Mill City High School. These charter schools add to the destabilization and destruction of our school systems. A concerning conflict of interest to have the current MFT union president as vice-chair. The money for the creation of The Guild came from an “innovation” grant by…..wait for it—– Bill Gates.

      The MFT is not an authorizer. The rank-and-file do not have a say in this mess.

      1. Rank and file like the parents and teachers apparently do not have a say in anything especially at admin level. What is the board’s stance on all this? Years ago I wrote that charters were a negative aspect of education and got told by the admin that I should tone down my statement. the board always took the easy way out and unfortunately is loosing its ability to control the situation or maybe does not want to. there is no easy solution if any but to find a good supertendent who understands what needs to be done and has the will to do so. I hope the board can find that person and makes the right choice for the next superintendent.

Comments are closed.