shadow

(This post is part of a series related to the VIVA/NEA 360° Report. See an overview here. You can download a summary of the changes to the report drafts here: What Was Left Behind, prepared by the same author.)

by Petra Schmid-Riggins

It’s late, silence echoes through the house, time to go to sleep.

So why is an inner voice screaming, “It’s time to speak out.”

The writers of the Writing Collaborative (WC) have had the opportunity to express their views on subjects regarding education far too long kept silent. For the record, let it be known, this was the time for clarity and decisiveness; the day when we shared our report “Changing the Story: Transformation toward Fair Accountability and Responsibility in Public Education” with NEA leadership. It was time to speak truth and break the silence. We spoke truth, we broke the silence, we presented, and we engaged in meaningful discussions.

So why is an inner voice screaming, “It’s time to speak out.”

As a Writing Collaborative we’ve been duped. We’ve been deceived. We’ve been kept in the dark. Normally as professionals we are reluctant to write on these types of issues, the last minute edits that compromised essential meaning, the narrow time frames, the unease and tensions among us. We’ve been well versed in appreciating value differences, in respecting nuance, professional norms and conventions while collaborating and working together since September 2014.

However, having said all that, sometimes things are not just different they are plainly and universally wrong. Under those circumstances, in those specific situations it is not only appropriate, it is necessary-our civic mandate-to identify the wrong and to bring it out into the light.

Tonight is that night. “It’s time to speak out.”

Preparing for a long night, I light a candle, sip on a hot tea and display the Final Report Draft, the report submitted by the WC to VIVA New Voice Strategies, and the Final Report, the report handed to us on December 8th shortly before our presentation to NEA Leadership.

I am busy now, no longer tired, determined to compare both reports, create a connection possibly an understanding to what happened during the midnight hour edits. An understanding why some WC members are comfortable where others are increasingly uncomfortable with the edits.

And then I noticed, the three page introduction highlighting significant historical events was reduced to a single statement. I recalled Ed’s concern, “I want to discuss what happened to the intro tomorrow as my experience is my voice was eliminated.” A mental picture, of a soft-spoken man capturing the audience with his skit about the soldiers of the French army refusing to follow orders and his passionate plea to imagine that instead the soldiers being told to run faster, arose. His story of the French army is analogous to teachers today. The same man gently confiding in me, “I almost did not come to D.C. since my voice was eliminated.”

Carefully I make my way through the Index, each recommendation has undergone a complete rewrite. A sigh of relief as I am comparing the proposed solutions until I get to proposed solutions 23 through 27 of the original report. Make no mistake, I am still comparing the Index and loud and clear I hear Enid’s voice reminding us to “stay strong.” She stood strong when explaining to the task force the dire need to restructure the evaluation process, to modify the role of administrators, and to assure that standardized testing has no negative impact on teachers and students. The original recommendation 5  challenges the reader to consider the current bias of evaluation systems and the ill-intended usage of standardized test scores. Her voice represents the voices of teachers nationwide, her meaning and intent is clear as she concludes recommendation 5 by stating “As a result, teachers will have a voice; their perspectives and evidence will be as relevant as an administrator. Teachers will keep their careers safe and intact without fear of being rated as ineffective, suddenly transferred, or replaced by someone who costs less.”

My spirits are brought low as I notice omissions and rephrasing of entire paragraphs in recommendation 3. The omissions, text taken out of context resemble a gray, cold, and chaotic winter day. Politicians and policy makers unable to agree on how to adequately and equally fund all schools, to assure constitutional action without destroying due process rights, and to consider teachers’ input invaluable to policymakers. Josh is well-versed in politics and the misgivings thereof; he is so well-versed that I would recommend him as Superintendent of Public Instruction. During the presentation he clearly stated the necessity to amend legislation to guarantee top-down funding without top-down control; schools must be funded adequately and equitably. In a later correspondence, he mentioned, “I feel personally betrayed to see hours of my time away from my family or my school and other responsibilities wasted by somebody’s careless edits. I don’t think fears of hidden agendas are at all unfounded.”

Slowly the night comes to an end, I am still combing line by line through both reports noticing major omissions in recommendation 4. Was this the team that felt comfortable with the edits? Was this the team that invited and trusted WC members to edit their work? I don’t remember. But I do remember that we all agreed that any edits should occur from within and that each team’s voice needed to be honored to assure the integrity of each recommendation.

So why is an inner voice screaming, “It’s time to speak out.”

As I am reaching the end of the comparison, the answer is laying in front of me — I am glancing over the yellow highlighted sections and the purple text highlights and I deeply understand the sorrow and betrayal some WC members experienced during this brief journey.

It is almost noon the following day and it indeed is time to speak out, time to send the comparison report to all WC members with the following comment: “Please let us not convince one another that only minor changes occurred some changes were rather significant/impactful. It is apparent that some members of the writing collaborative felt comfortable with any changes made were others felt quite betrayed. Pretending it did not happen will make matters worse for the ones feeling betrayed.”

Author

Anthony Cody

Anthony Cody worked in the high poverty schools of Oakland, California, for 24 years, 18 of them as a middle school science teacher. He was one of the organizers of the Save Our Schools March in Washington, DC in 2011 and he is a founding member of The Network for Public Education. A graduate of UC Berkeley and San Jose State University, he now lives in Mendocino County, California.

Comments

  1. Mary Porter    

    Thank you for saying this out loud, Petra.

  2. Birgit    

    Petra, this is a great article.

  3. petra09    

    Thank you — Dankeschoen. Saturday. 04/25, I will present in Chicago at the NPE conference. Petra

  4. Duane Swacker    

    It would certainly help others to understand those changes if they were referenced word for word. As it is reading this critique is like looking through fog to discern whether one sees a deer, bush or a hay bale.

  5. Anthony Cody    

    The major changes are highlighted in the document that is shared as a downloadable PDF at the top of this post.

  6. petra09    

    Scroll to the very top of the page and click on the hyperlink “What Was Left Behind”. See Mr. Cody’s statement: “You can download a summary of the changes to the report drafts here: What Was Left Behind, prepared by the same author.”

Leave a Reply