“Fair game – noun. Open to legitimate pursuit, attack or ridicule.” – Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictonary
In 18th Century England, animals that were legal to hunt, either with shotgun or pack of rabid dogs, were considered “fair game.”
In the frontier wilderness of northern New York, American rangers harassed John Burgoyne’s British army by doing the unthinkable—hunting officers as if they were animals, or “fair game.”
In 1917, the German navy declared open season on all Atlantic shipping. Unarmed ocean liners and cargo ships were considered “fair game.”
So in the 21st Century, according to David Brooks, author, New York Times columnist and contributor to the Atlantic, teachers are also to be subject to the hunting dogs and shotguns, as we are now “fair game.”
The recent “Ideas” edition of the Atlantic had an interesting—albeit provocative—piece by Brooks, a liberal-turned-conservative who has recently joined the education reform crusade. He has penned column after column of Times opinions lambasting teacher unions, exalting charter schools and school choice, and glorifying the current trend towards “data-driven” instruction.
To wit, Brooks breaks no real new ground in his article “Teachers are Fair Game.” He also says little that is new in terms of the changing reaction to teacher unions: anti-union bias has usually stood ascendant in times of economic distress i.e. the 1930s, and the immediate postwar recession.
Yet what sets this piece apart is its tone: not of someone willing to work with others, but that of a hunter stalking its prey.
That prey is us. We are that game.
His arguments are hardly original: improving teacher quality, the cessation of tenure and other teacher protections and the perceived intransigence of the education establishment. That establishment, according to Brooks,
“is both softhearted and hardheaded. They put big emphasis on the teaching relationship, but are absolutely Patton-esque [interesting adjective there] when it comes to dismantling anything that interferes with that relationship…union rules that protect bad and mediocre teachers, teacher contracts that prevent us from determining which educators are good and which need help, and state and federal alws that either impede reform or dump money into the ancien regime.”
Yet Brooks errs on two huge factors. First, he sees the unions in it of themselves as a problem, without leaving any opening for those union leaders willing to work with administrators to find real solutions. This is where Brooks the rabid union-hunter aims for his kill. He remarks with unrestrained glee about the shift in opinion amongst the media and political leaders against perceived union abuses. “The unions feel the sand eroding under their feet.” Brooks states. “They sense their lack of legitimacy, especially within the media and the political class. They still fight to preserve their interest but they’ve lost their moral authority…”
Moral authority? The authority a union has is to its membership, and the use of morality has all too often been used by administrators to abuse and harass such members. It does education reformers absolutely no good to attack a union per se. Unions are here, and unions will stay into the foreseeable future. Even the vaunted charter schools have unionized to some extent, by consent of their faculty.
There is room for reforms that benefit instruction, and there are unions and union leaders who are willing to work together with school districts to reform education. Putting unions in a corner with attacks, however, is not only fruitless, but counterproductive. By placing unions on the defensive, without reaching out an olive branch of cooperation, nothing will get done. Cooperation will get results: not all the results you want, but that is life. Something is better than nothing.
Brook’s second error involves his argument about teacher quality. He correctly states that a core issue of education is the relationship between teacher and student. Like Brooks, I too have issues with teacher quality, particularly in teacher training. In a post last year, I lamented the ease with which I earned my masters degree in education, stating that for teachers to gain respect their education should be of a competitive caliber. My guess is Brooks and I are in full agreement on this.
Yet his solution involves more than just tweaking graduate education. As if he released a pack of rabid lions on Christian martyrs, Brooks exalts that “aided by the realization that teacher quality is what matters most, a new cadre of reformers have come to the scene, many of them bred within the ranks of Teach for America [oh brother]. These are stubborn, data-driven types with a low tolerance for bullshit.”
I will not rehash my feelings on Teach for America, the institution. Let’s just say it’s less than positive.
That last sentence, however, bears the obvious taint of hypocrisy. “Data-driven” types with a “low tolerance for bullshit.” In the past few years, I have been knee-deep in the use of standardized tests to guide instruction. You can even say I’m the poster boy for “data-driven” instruction.
In my experience, the entire exercise of using data, as it is now, is bullshit.
If you look at standard assessments and practice assessments in many school districts, you may see a disturbing pattern. The state exams tend to be much easier than the practice tests. The practice tests, for the most part, exhibit an eerie upward trajectory in scores as test time gets closer.
A more naïve soul, an earnest “no-bullshit” TFA-er, for example, would see this as proof of instruction driven by data from the previous assessment, thus an upward sloping path.
Your veteran teacher, however, isn’t fooled so easily. When a rookie teacher sees achievement, a veteran sees manipulation. What is to stop states, school districts—and the test-prep companies in their pocket—to engineer a series of tests so that it seems that students are doing better?
The federal contest for Race to the Top funds doesn’t help in this regard at all. In fact, it allows for more manipulation and outright fraud in student data than ever before. Because of the need for increased test scores, school districts are more open to the temptation of test-rigging—with the often-tacit approval of state education departments. After all, doesn’t everyone win in this scenario: teachers “look good,” administrators “look good,” feds see that the kids are “doing better” and reward states that “sustain student achievement”?
The students don’t win: not by a long shot. Sometimes when I assess them, their scores fall, often far below other previous tests. This is natural: new material and new concepts often make this happen, as well as normal student jitters about tests. To me, it does the student little use to give them a false sense of achievement. They may have stumbled, but at least I can get an authentic view of what they know and don’t know—at least as authentic as possible using a test.
What does Brooks really want? “No-bullshit” types that really use data in a fruitful way, regardless of the results? Or does he want teachers that make sure students do “well” on tests at all costs? Higher education, for example, is only “data-driven” in the case of admissions: the SAT and AP scores, etc. Colleges and universities require thinking, reasoning, and research skills that often cannot be quantified.
If students are only taught “to tests”, doesn’t this give them a disadvantage in higher education? Do education “reformers” really even care about disadvantaged students if their methods effectively bar them from higher education, leaving it to better prepared, richer and “whiter” students?
[Oh dear, did I let the cat out of the bag? Did it slip out that the current craze of education reform is simply a ruse to create a permanent underclass that is educated just enough to show that disadvantaged students “can learn” and “make academic progress.” Aren’t these “data driven” students still woefully ill-prepared for much-needed college and university education?…that’s for another post.]
Brooks may have the best of intentions, but his methods and ideologies do nothing but entrench established interests on both sides. The TFA, data-driven method is flawed—in some cases dreadfully so. Attacking unions as the ultimate problem alienates and immobilizes those teachers (like me) who still feel educational reform can still happen with a strong union and administration in partnership.
Lastly, what better way to make teachers—among the hardest working Americans out there—feel like subhuman carrion than by labeling them as prey for the hunters. If Mr. Brooks wants to play that game, here’s my announcement for my fellow teachers:
Those TFA “data-driven” types with a “low tolerance for bullshit”? They’re “fair game.” Unleash the hounds.
This Day in History 10/17: Burgoyne Surrenders at Saratoga
Image via Wikipedia
Everything about the Battle of Saratoga–including its name–has been scrubbed clean by scores of textbooks.
On October 17, 1777, after a punishing four-month campaign, British general John Burgoyne surrendered almost 6,000 British, Hessian and Canadian troops to the Northern Department of the Continental Army, led by General Horatio Gates and (they should get all the credit for victory) Generals Benedict Arnold and Daniel Morgan.
It was a stunning victory, one that would have widespread effects on the Revolutionary War. Yet many of the details have been lost to the chest-thumping.
Burgoyne left Canada in June of 1777 with a force that was designed to connect with two other British forces: Barry St. Leger‘s mixed army of British, Hessian and Native troops from the west, and Sir William Howe‘s main British force from New York City. They were supposed to meet near Albany, dividing the colonies in two and effectively ending the war and the American Revolution.
It didn’t exactly go as planned.
First to punk out was Howe. It was, on the surface, an easy choice: George Washington’s army was being driven from Pennsylvania, and the rebel capital, Philadelphia was poised for the taking. To him, it made more sense. Never mind that the plan to effectively end the war was fucked up from the very beginning–Washington was the bigger prize. It would be a prize Howe would never get, and would soon be relieved by Sir Henry Clinton.
St. Leger had an even worse time. He never had any intention of backing out: his mixed force of 2000 Loyalists, British and natives crossed Lake Ontario and landed at Oswego on July 25. The brutal campaigns of Oriskany and Fort Stanwix–where American militiamen and native allies slugged it out with St. Leger’s forces to a stalemate–changed the story. It drained the morale of St. Leger’s native allies, who took their supplies and took off. It didn’t help that Benedict Arnold tricked St. Leger into thinking a larger colonial force was coming to relieve Fort Stanwix. By the time St. Leger shows up at Fort Ticonderoga on September 27, his feeble force was no help to Burgoyne.
Of the three prongs on the British plan, it was Burgoyne, funny enough, who was most successful. By July he had retaken Fort Ticonderoga, an important strategic and symbolic fortification on the foot of Lake Champlain. Yet from then on, his campaign slowed to a crawl, as the wagons crating the supplies–including Burgoyne’s luggage, china and furniture–got bogged down in the Hudson highlands.
In the meantime, a quick American victory over Burgoyne’s advance cavalry at Bennington boosted morale to the point that American forces would swell to close to 15,000. It included Daniel Morgan’s Virginia sharpshooters, Benedict Arnold’s force sent to relieve Fort Stanwix, as well as the main force under Benjamin Lincoln and a new commander, British trained Horatio Gates.
Gates thought he could do a better job than Washington. Arnold thought he could do a better job than Gates. Both hated each other.
So how was Saratoga won?
Saratoga was not one battle, but rather a series of maneuvers and two battles over on month. The first, the Battle of Freeman’s Farm, the British technically won, but at the cost of 600 casualties. On October 7, the British attacked American fortified positions at Bemis Heights. In the two actions–the second punctuated by a daring attack by Arnold who was probably drunk–the British suffered a total of 1000 casualties.
Outnumber three to one, with the Americans controlling the high ground and surrounding him at the town of Saratoga itself, Burgoyne was forced to surrender his forces. When he discussed the terms with General Gates, Burgoyne insisted on calling the surrender a “convention” rather than a “capitulation.”
He fooled no one.
On the final ceremony, after Burgoyne offered his sword to Gates (who refused–a move that further infuriated Arnold), 6000 soldiers laid down their arms as the band played “Yankee Doodle.”
It was very clear to everyone this was no “convention.”
Saratoga would invoke the first day of Thanksgiving, decreed by the Continental Congress on December 18, 1777. It convinced France and Spain that the Americans could actually win the war–given the right support. Soon, both countries would sign treaties of alliance with the United States, transforming a colonial rebellion into a world war.
Below is a two-part short documentary about Saratoga narrated by Dan Roberts.
Leave a comment
Filed under Uncategorized
Tagged as American History, Battle of Saratoga, Benedict Arnold, Burgoyne, Commentary, current events, Daniel Morgan, Education, European history, Fort Stanwix, Fort Ticonderoga, Great Britain, History, Horatio Gates, John Burgoyne, Media, motion pictures, movies, Native Americans, New York History, Opinion, Social studies, Teachers, Teaching, television, U.S. History, United States, war, World History