My not-so-dressy shoes.

Here’s a link to video of the event at the Fordham Institute on a debate about opting out of test-based accountability in education reform.

I’ll have to watch the video to see if my question/comment was recorded. I’m still kicking myself because I feel like I botched it. I was a little nervous and my head was swimming with ideas, and I normally don’t get that way. I should have narrowed my initial question about asking all the teachers in the room to raise their hands. I know for a fact that some who raised their hands have never actually taught in a K-12 public school classroom. But my point remains the same: educators are the ones that need to be making these decisions, not wonks.

With that, as the above picture indicates, I stick out like a sore thumb when I go to these kinds of events. I haven’t been to many, but I walk into a room filled with mainly 27 and unders in pant suits, likely interns and what I heard referred to as “Hill staffers,” bright eyed and bushy tailed. I walk in with blue pants, an orange shirt, and some kick ass bright blue and yellow PF Flyers. You won’t very often see me in dress shoes.

But onto some substance about the discussion. This is perhaps the biggest thing I learned, maybe two big things. First, opting out or refusal movements are definitely on the radar of some of the primary education reform organizations. That is an absolute fact. They are no longer being ignored. So, whatever folks are doing, it’s getting some attention. That’s the first issue.

The second big point is perhaps two fold. Part A, opt out resistance is subject to scolding and mockery. It’s linked to far right paranoia about government takeovers and the like. This is where the extreme, Tea Party right is sort of stealing all the thunder of progressive challenges to things like Common Core and testing. It’s as if progressives or those left of center have no problems with CCSS, that’s this is all about the right wing and ObamaCore, or whatever. Progressive based resistance to CCSS is not as noticeable I suppose, if that’s a way to put it?

Part B of the second point: the potential for opting out, or what they euphamistically call “flexibility” is being acknowledged as a distinct possibility, but only for the affluent. You see, those on the panel don’t necessarily see opting out as an act of civil disobedience. They see it as more along the lines of pissing and moaning about being held accountable, and opting out simply being a call for more flexibility. So, in Fordham’s estimation, there’s, say, 10% of schools out there that are actually successful, doing great things, keeping those test scores up. They are the ones that should be permitted to “opt out” of strict accountability measures. That’s how they see opting out, or concede that this is where it’s coming from: the affluent parents and communities who want to continue doing interesting and creative projects, but don’t feel as if they have the freedom to do so after NCLB.

If this perspective of opting out actually exists, I can’t say for sure, this does not characterize the entire opt out movement. Opting out is not asking permission from anyone for some release from strict accountability measures. Folks advocating for opting out aren’t begging for some relief. Opting out for many educators, parents, students, and other pro-public school groups is a means of protest against the kinds of reforms that close schools, punish teachers and students, and ultimately lead to for-profit control of education. Opting out isn’t about cutting some slack, it’s about disrupting the entire system, stopping the wheels in motion so we can actually get our voices heard.

When I made my comment, the moderator was very dismissive of me, no response from the panel, just “Great.” I have a PhD in an educational discipline. I’ve been teaching for over 13 years. Don’t shut me out of this conversation! This is precisely why you have an opt out movement, because all we get is a dismissive “Great,” “Thanks,” or the worst of all, “I admire your passion, but…”.

I’m sure that at one point, we’ve all gotten into this conversation from well-meaning spaces. Not all, some, and I want to give the panelists the benefit of the doubt. But now, their lucrative salaries are being paid by very rich entities, like the Gates Foundation. Don’t tell me that doesn’t affect your outcomes or your views. Don’t tell me that, because I can easily share with you how just a little Race to the Top money changes EVERYTHING! Just don’t tell me that. When folks are starving, those Race to the Top crumbs seem awfully tasty, and they’ll run over grandmother to get them.

When you want to work in a world of suits and climate controlled offices and interns with strappy shoes, rather than putting your money where your mouth is in the classroom, spare me your good intentions. Your previous intentions, whatever they may have been, are paved over with how and where you get your money.

So, those of us without money and big grants, that’s why we consider opting out. That’s why the movement exists. It’s not to beg for some flexibility in some Mother May I fashion. It’s sticking it right where it hurts most, right in the data that is so coveted. You want it so bad? Come and get it. We dare you.