EDITORS' CORNER

Education news says ‘Here’s what K-12 field thinks of Trump’; not a single teacher featured

Share to:

Instead, we get a college librarian comparing Trump’s plans to George Wallace

In what may be one of the most misleading headlines so far this year, a few weeks ago Education Week featured an article titled “Here’s What the K-12 Field Thinks of the Trump Ed. Department.”

Hilariously, not a single classroom teacher was among those who offered an opinion. Instead, Ed Week played fast and loose with the term “field” and highlighted a bunch of mostly university academics.

And do you think any of them had anything favorable to say? Hah.

The closest Ed Week got to a teacher was Sharif El-Mekki, a former teacher (and principal), but who’s been involved with an outfit called the Center for Black Educator Development for a number of years.

El-Mekki, who said “talking about race, class, and privilege” is a “natural conversation” for him, claims Ronald Reagan would be considered “woke” by MAGA.

“[I]n today’s GOP, which has embraced racial polarization and denies the need for any race-based initiatives, Reagan would be derided and booted out,” El-Mekki says. He added that under Trump “we are moving socially and politically backward at a time when our country is becoming more diverse.”

Alice Ginsberg, associate director for the Rutgers University’s Institute for Leadership, Equity, and Justice who specializes in “social justice pedagogies,” believes while there are some “instances” of DEI going overboard in the education realm, such “pales in comparison” to Trump’s “seeming intention to end critical thinking.”

Ball State University’s David Roof says the federal Department of Education “was never meant to micromanage schools or dictate curriculum” but to “ensure a floor of fairness [and] provide federal scaffolding for communities historically left behind.”

Roof believes the DOE “didn’t fail us. We failed it.”

University of Colorado Boulder librarian Allan Van Hoye (pictured) whose research interests include critical theory and disinformation, invoked the spectre of former Alabama Governor George Wallace: “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.”

MORE: Major paper wonders if private education system is responsible for Trump

Van Hoye swarmily says that “while Trump may not stand on stage and declare this [emphasis added], the history of segregation is intertwined in his desire to return education to the states. The cry for states’ rights is always a call for states to have the right to discriminate. The move by the Trump administration to abolish the department is no different.”

Other K-12 “experts” include a University of Houston postdoctoral fellow and PhD student, a USC education professor, and the CEO of a “social-impact company.”

If it needs to be said, no — we are not moving “socially and politically backward” under Trump; oppression studies gurus simply cannot grasp that many Americans believe a multicultural society cannot long function when every racial/ethnic group sees itself as part of that group first and foremost — instead of just “Americans.”

And need it be said librarian Van Hoye’s claim is beyond ridiculous? Why use George Wallace? Just compare the situation to 1850s Alabama if you want to sound really provocative.

While Trump’s plans to dismantle the federal Department of Education are certainly debatable, at the very least a reorganization and/or major restructuring of it is overdue. Allowing states and even individual districts more autonomy generates competition and creativity among teachers.

Not to mention, the dept. has an $80 billion budget with thousands of employees, almost half a billion was allotted for racially exclusive teacher hiring initiatives, and it partnered with NGOs to support efforts like “decentering whiteness.”

Remember George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” and Barack Obama’s “Race to the Top” which served to squelch said competition and creativity in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach (or, as Professor Roof said, how they “micromanaged schools or dictated curriculum”)?

Standardized curricula and pre-fab lessons turned teachers into glorified classroom monitors. In Delaware, Obama’s RTTT resulted in hastily created teacher “evaluations” such as “Component 5” which had teachers guffawing at the ineptitude.

But hey, they kept the federal monies flowing in.

(Ironically, many teachers and especially the teachers unions screamed bloody murder regarding the Bush initiatives; Obama’s RTTT was dubbed “NCLB on steroids” but criticism of that program was much more muted. Gee, how come?)

Decentralization also will give parents more options; a recent survey of New York City parents revealed over 40 percent had removed their children from city schools because they “wanted a more rigorous education” than the district was providing. (Of course, given the education establishment’s political proclivities — see directly above — change will be harder in blue areas.)

If Ed Week actually bothered to go around the country and ask those on the front lines — especially the approximately 40 percent or so of teachers who consider themselves right-of-center, you’d likely find a great deal of support for the current administration’s decentralization efforts. Only novices or outright incompetents would be wary of having more responsibility in creating their own lessons and units.

And I can virtually guarantee that, even if many teachers don’t openly say so, Trump’s recent executive order regarding school discipline will be greeted by with an immense sigh of relief. There’s nothing that changes a progressive teacher’s politics faster than administrators not giving a sh** about chronically disruptive students who routinely destroy classroom environments.

MORE: Trump finds nearly $1 billion in Education Department waste

IMAGE CAPTION & CREDIT: A gent expresses his confusion/bewilderment; Barnaby Chambers/Shutterstock. INTERIOR IMAGE: U. Colorado Boulder