Edujobs

Communities for Teaching Excellence is looking for a COO. Stand For Children is seeking a marketing director. And the Broad Center is seeking a communications director (LA based).

25 Responses to “Edujobs”

  1. jmiller Says:

    Communities for Teaching Excellence. I see. Whatever.

    Yet another astroturf name for what it isn’t. It’s about school reform via cracking down on teachers and their unions. Their “Theory of Change” is a purely politically-inspired model to affect policy outcomes. Allegedly, this whole non-profit is geared to make sure there are better teachers in classrooms–just like dozens of other similar groups sprouting up across the country. One thing for sure is, with tens of billions of dollars floating around the education world, there is plenty for non-profits to scam er, creatively use to pursue only the best for the children.

    The other thing that is a certainty in all these groups is that teachers are never actually included in their theories, or planning, or strategy. Only retired teachers or those smart enough to leave their crappy classroom and low pay and disrespect for the greener pastures of demonizing their former colleagues.

  2. Attorney DC Says:

    Jmiller: Well said. I wish more people could see through all these organizations and realize that the main thrust of education reform these days has nothing to do with helping students. Instead, the reformers plans tend to scapegoat and demonize teachers (all the while bringing in more dough for corporations).

  3. edconsumer Says:

    These are the awesomest rants ever, particularly in response to a posting about a non-profit trying to hire people.

    Non-profits: evil anti-teacher front groups.

    Philanthropists: people who hate kids and try to make money by giving it away.

    Retired and former teachers: not real teachers.

    Reformers: hate students, hate teachers AND motivated by more money for corporate America.

    It is shocking that the truth about these massive conspiracies haven’t gained a foothold with either political party or the public at large. I can’t believe the Obama administration continues to support philanthropists and non-profits (and probably former teachers too!) given their clearly evil plot to hurt kids.

  4. Linda/RetiredTeacher Says:

    Yes, it’s very obvious from reading this blog that the “reform” movement is about getting a part of the billions of dollars floating around in the education world. This doesn’t mean that anyone has a “clearly evil plot to hurt kids.” It just means that the objective of the “reform” movement is to make money through “edujobs” which are never teaching positions. Anyone who doubts this needs only to track all the prominent “reformers.” They all have large incomes derived from education and none of them is a teacher. I am not referring to the philanthropists but rather to people who are making a living off of “reform.”

    No, the general public is not yet aware of what is happening but just wait until “reform” hits the suburbs.

  5. Chris Smyr Says:

    “Luckily” Retired Linda is “aware” enough and willing to put scare quotes around “everything”.

    Be thankful, unsuspecting public! You wouldn’t have realized their “reformist” motives otherwise!

    And hurry up and respond to the other thread, Attorney DC. The suspense is absolutely killing me:

    eduwonk.com/2011/11/occupy-the-schools.html/comment-page-2#comment-232433

  6. edconsumer Says:

    LRT, definitely! Without a doubt, the purpose of the reform “movement” is to make money. That is clearly why these terrible people are in “education.” I’m glad that people who hate reform like Weingarten and “Ravitch” make only pennies in their non-teaching “jobs.”

    And I completely agree – when the suburbs realize that the nonprofit workers are the true corporate evil money-makers, the suburbanites will rise up. I know that traditionally, the suburbs like to stake out positions far to the left of the Obama administration, so I am guessing the pitchforks will be out. I can’t wait until the public becomes aware!

  7. Linda/RetiredTeacher Says:

    I’m glad you agree.

  8. jmiller Says:

    I’m sorry the doubters aren’t getting the message. I’m not saying there is a vast conspiracy but since 1983 and the publication of “A Nation at Risk,” there has been an ongoing effort to radically, if incrementally, take down the existing American education system of public schools and replace it with options that benefit the moneyed classes.

    Scott Walker’s Wisconsin is but a recent example of union busting and the Iraq war was an example of trying privatize even the public service of war making. And if you don’t believe in following the money or the influence peddling, you are naive.

    And edconsumer, not even the Democrats will own up to their role in the current reform climate. They are willing to alter their priorities and believe in reform with the conservatives because they lost their credibility with the public some time ago and so long as they go along, they can still prevent the conservatives from a wholesale takedown of public education and the destruction of the labor unions.

    So, just look around and notice how many of these nonprofits have arisen in just the past few years. Why do you think that is? I’m also not saying all of them have bad intentions, mostly they think they are doing good but all they really end up doing is playing politics. Very few of these astroturf organizations are truly grassroots and very few actually want teachers to join. To enjoin working, classroom teachers in their political battles would be anathema.

  9. Chris Smyr Says:

    “I’m not saying there is a vast conspiracy”

    That’s exactly what you’re saying, specifically when you assert that ed reform is just a clever ruse to make it easier for the rich to screw the poor. Or that noticing a large # of nonprofits in education implies they couldn’t possibly be operating with noble intentions. Do you folks even know what the word means?

  10. jmiller Says:

    Is it really necessary to insult my intelligence? Conspiracies are hidden, this is not. Sheesh.

  11. Chris Smyr Says:

    Then you can provide the evidence for these statements:

    1) Ed reform intends to “take down the existing American education system of public schools and replace it with options that benefit the moneyed classes”;

    2) “very few [ed reform non-profits] actually want teachers to join”;

    3) “teachers are never actually included in [ed reform organization] theories, or planning, or strategy. ”

    Surely there is strong evidence that reform is intended to destroy public schools, right? I’m really looking forward to your reply in which you offer it.

  12. phillipmarowe Says:

    Seeing Creationist Chris ask for evidence is funny.

  13. Chris Smyr Says:

    Phillip, not once have I ever made a claim here that I did not support with evidence.

    In contrast, on many, many occasions, you’ve proffered untenable arguments, eschewed the use of evidence, avoided thoughtful debate, and butchered understanding of many sorts of publications, all the while becoming more and more enamored at passive-aggressive attempts to derail every possibly productive discussion that could ever be had regarding education and reform.

    Who, then, is the bigger “Creationist”?

  14. Phillipmarowe Says:

    Aww, poor Chris.
    Doesn’t like nicknames?
    Who’s the bigger creationist?
    I weigh in at 236 lbs, 6’1″.
    And I don’t chew tobacco.

  15. jmiller Says:

    Chris you seem surprised that anyone would even question the accountability of the reformers. Here is a take-down of “A Nation at Risk”: http://www.edutopia.org/landmark-education-report-nation-risk One of the major issues with Risk was that it itself never had the kind of rigor one would expect of a research study. But, silly me, it was never meant to be that in the first place. I recommend reading up on that one publication that has done so much to drive contemporary reform.

    As a TFA grad, I guess I’m not surprised you are surprised or even annoyed by people like me. I understand you are very committed to the cause and follow a political view similar to mine. Open your eyes. Where do you think the movement towards vouchers, choice, and charters came from anyway? Why has there been so much of a push for such alternatives? Hint: It’s not because research universities (not bought and paid for think tanks) discovered that they were superior to existing schools. Ravitch has much to say about how modern reform came about. See also https://journal.buffalostate.edu/index.php/soe/article/viewFile/125/60

    See also http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2010/12/nonprofit-education-management-organizations-continue-enjoy-steady-growth

    Did TFA tell you that the goalposts for education reform change all the time? How impossible it is to have teachers chase such phantoms of what is expected from them? While we have standards, even they change as do the high-stakes exams. Education reform is big business and there are vested interests, as in any system, who will fight for the status quo. Not the so-called status quo of keeping public schools where they are but for the status quo of keeping public schools on the ropes, always failing because of some inherent fault in the public delivery system.

  16. Chris Smyr Says:

    jmiller,

    Why aren’t you giving any evidence for the specific claims you made before? The ones that were surely not the least bit akin to a vast conspiracy because the evidence was plentiful?

    Instead of evidence for these claims, you first give a link to an article that professes to examine the failings of “A Nation at Risk”, and thereupon the failings of ed reform in general, except it says very little about what the report actually got wrong and instead assumes referencing the Sandia Report over and over again is enough for complete refutation. Here’s a more legitimate take on that report, not from Edutopia or Ravitch’s twitter or whatever blog you want to cite next, but from JSTOR directly:

    ABSTRACT The author assesses the Sandia Report, a controversial analysis of U.S. education by the Sandia National Laboratories that challenges popular views of an educational decline. The report, titled “Perspectives on Education in America,” was finally made public in the May/June 1993 issue of The Journal of Educational Research (Carson, Huelskamp, & Woodall, 1993). The assessment focuses on the Sandia Report’s contentions about K through 12 performance, specifically the SAT decline, NAEP achievement, and the international assessments. The author concludes that the report is generally right about steady trends, but that it is seriously flawed by errors in analysis, insufficient evidence, mischaracterizations of the international data, and a failure to consider the evidence that U.S students are performing at low levels. In spite of its findings, fundamental school reform is still warranted.

    This is all beside the point, of course, since school reform is not grounded in the basis of one report, and we can find many other points of evidence that suggest school reform is warranted.

    As to your second link about “Obama’s Neo-liberal Agenda”, the given evidence in the paper is extensively flawed and/or nonexistent, so I’ll just post a revealing passage from the conclusion that I hope we all can have a good chuckle at while we appreciate its nuance:

    “Obama’s educational policy is furthering neoliberal and neoconservative agendas to undermine the welfare state, and hand over the public sector to market capitalism. In a market economy, charter school expansion will likely increase social inequalities by encouraging capitalist Darwinism, which leaves urban minority youth, special needs students, and English language learners at ‘a competitive disadvantage.’”

    In response to your third link, I don’t know what exactly you want this data to suggest other than that there are non-profit and for-profit organizations that run some schools, so maybe you can clarify.

    Finally, you are sorely mistaken if you think my asking you this has anything to do with TFA. I think it’s always useful to question motives, of reform proponents and detractors. That’s what I’m doing now:

    * Do you have direct evidence of widespread foul play and ulterior motivations in school reform?

    * Do you have direct evidence for the specific claims you made earlier in this thread?

    Just the specific facts, please, as I’ve sorted through enough of the other fluff you have presented.

  17. jmiller Says:

    Sounds like you’re a true believer Chris. The kind of evidence you want of foul play does not exist because I am not claiming foul play. Neither are there ulterior motives–just actors with motives. I think that American education is being driven by ideological motives backed by profit-driven individuals and organizations. There is no conspiracy because it is all out in the open. Your facts and mine don’t seem to line up. Perhaps you understand the nature of social science research and should not ask for facts–if your mind is made up I will never be able to offer the kind of evidence you want. Facts need context and perspective. Apple said it better than I of the complexities of ed policy but with discernible ideological direction p31, last paragraph, http://www.jcu.edu/education/ed500/Apple_Curric_Intl.pdf

    The Heritage Foundation likes what is going on http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/school-choice-in-america-2011-educational-opportunity-reaches-new-heights

    Fact: In 2009, five percent of whites ages 16 to 24 were not enrolled in school and had not completed high school, compared with 10 percent of blacks and 18 percent of Hispanics. Or is it a fact? What does it mean? Does it mean that schools are failing, that we need more TFA grads in more schools, perhaps?

    But ok, try this on. The Stand for Children Executive Officer, Jonah Edelman was recently caught playing political games: At the 2011 Aspen Ideas Festival, Edelman said: “… We decided to get involved in midterm elections, which many advised us against doing…So our analysis was he’s still going to be in power, and as such the raw politics were that we should tilt toward him, and so we interviewed 36 candidates in targeted races. … I’m being quite blunt here. The individual candidates were essentially a vehicle to execute a political objective, which was to tilt toward Madigan. The press never picked up on it. We endorsed nine individuals – and six of them were Democrats, three Republicans – and tilted our money toward Madigan, who was expecting because of Bruce Rauner’s leadership … that all our money was going to go to Republicans. That was really an show of – indication to him that we could be a new partner to take the place of the Illinois Federation of Teachers. That was the point. Luckily, it never got covered that way. That wouldn’t have worked well in Illinois – Madigan is not particularly well liked. And it did work…Everything we fought for in Colorado down to the last half hour in the legislative session, they gave us at the negotiating table [in Illinois]. Not irrationally, not idealistically – it wasn’t a change of heart. It’s because they feared that we were able to potentially execute our collective bargaining proposal … And unions are very logical. They’re concerned most about their dues and their membership, and then next up collective bargaining and pensions are somewhere right around there, and then teacher effectiveness issues, tenure, layoffs, compensation – that’s tertiary for them, so if you show them the capability to actually enact collective bargaining reforms they’re logically going to give on everything short of that to pull back the barricades…And so in the endgame, the Chicago Teachers Union took that deal, misunderstanding, probably not knowing the statistics about voting history – and the length of day and year was no longer bargainable in Chicago. And we insisted that we decide all the fine print about the process – she was happy to let us do that.”
    Watch it all here: http://youtu.be/kog8g9sTDSo

    Do you understand what is going on here? Edelman pwned the union and got what was politically expedient, not what was best for education. And Edelman is closely tied to Joel Klein’s EEP which just coincidently merged with SFC. But maybe you actually like Joel Klein who now works for Murdoch’s NewsCorp. I am totally sure, even without refereed studies, that Murdoch is all for public schools and unions. Klein also worked for Gates when the small high school model was all the rage. Remember that? Yeah, that worked out well. I’m sorry I can’t produce the dissertation you are looking for, Chris. I given you a start, a snapshot. There is much more and if you want to find out what is really going on, you’ll find it by following some of my leads. This is not the forum for me to school you.

  18. Chris Smyr Says:

    There is no conspiracy because it is all out in the open. Your facts and mine don’t seem to line up. Perhaps you understand the nature of social science research and should not ask for facts–if your mind is made up I will never be able to offer the kind of evidence you want.

    Then we’re done here. The conspiracy doesn’t exist because “it is all out in the open” yet you can’t give any relevant and direct evidence supporting the “ideological motives of profit-driven individuals”– which are totally not the same as ulterior motives — nor all the other weird stuff you claimed earlier. It’s all just so obvious! If only I tried harder to believe!

    I’m just not going to waste more time responding to the rest of your obtuse rant if you also won’t bother replying to my previous response explaining the errors in your first helping of fluff. But believe me– I am tempted.

    Facts need context and perspective.

    Yes, but you need facts, too.

  19. jmiller Says:

    So Chris, you ignore even the evidence from Stand for Children, Edelman, Klein and the rest of it. So be it. It has been most frustrating trying to communicate anything with you.

  20. Chris Smyr Says:

    Didn’t ignore it. It doesn’t support any of your claims, however, so what would you like me to say about it?

  21. jmiller Says:

    Try getting out of your grad student mindset, relax a little, and consider the possibility every human conversation you have doesn’t require dissertation defense levels of evidence or citation. An unhappy and lonely life follows that path. This isn’t the forum for that sort of thing. I gave you a sense of what I am seeing out there with twenty years of experience with teaching in both public schools and colleges. I was myself in grad school when the modern school reform effort began in the 1980s and my doctoral major professor was instrumental in the 1990s draft of the first national standards. I’ve seen change happen and like Diane Ravitch, I’ve been a party to it. And now, I don’t like what I am seeing. I don’t mind reform, I just don’t think it needs to be done with think tanks, non-profits, and wealthy donors funding astroturf organizations devoted to the election of pro-standardized-testing-is-reform candidates and both the right and left have been hoodwinked to think that is real reform. And, I don’t give a vole’s behind about your opinion of the quality of my statements. I’m not here to seek your approval, I’m here to have my say about what I feel is the truth of modern American education.

  22. Chris Smyr Says:

    consider the possibility every human conversation you have doesn’t require dissertation defense levels of evidence or citation.

    But you haven’t given *ANY* evidence, much less any publication worthy, that supports your claims. I get that you’re not warm to ed reform in its current form. I just wanted to know if the stuff you had said before had any objective backing to it. Instead, all I saw in response was a lot of question begging and an intense coloring of facts to fit your conclusions.

    I mean, your last two sentences above say it all: you don’t care if someone questions your statements, so long as you get a chance to say what you feel is the truth? What a novel approach to an education discussion forum.

  23. TaxPayer Says:

    It is frustrating as an outsider looking in at the education reform debate. One see’s a system that we spend the most and get the least. The current system is certainly not serving the students, parents, taxpayers or teachers (based on perceived attitude in blogs).

    Yet all efforts to improve, reform, or implement best practices are met with blood lust opposition. Why are teachers and education insiders not leading the reform effort or offering up viable alternatives to the public? If all these reforms are no good, what vision can you offer the public other than the status quo?

  24. jmiller Says:

    Get off your high horse, Chris.

    Dear TaxPayer, thank you for your continued funding of public education. My feeling is–and as Chris will note, I am not offering one shred of objective evidence to prove this in any way–that with politicians ultimately in control of education funding, the unions neutered, and public discourse about it charged with politics, there is very little teachers and insiders can do.

  25. Taxpayer Says:

    I read your Apple report and probably fall in the category of “new middle class committed to the ideology and techniques of accountability, measurement, and management”. It does not appear that much of this has been going on in education and that such .

    Teachers and insiders need to put forth their own solutions if they want to look credible.

Leave a Reply


× 7 = seven