Apparently the Obama DOEd "monitors" critics of its ed. "reform" policies.

[Smarmie Doofus]

This according to Assistant Secretary of Something or Other under his "good friend", Ed Sec. Arne Duncan. If there's a Nixon-style enemies list in Obamaville, I gotta think Diane Ravitch has to take up the first 25 slots.... so vexed at her are her former fellow school-"reformers" and so deep is the anger at her for switching sides and making the use of quotes around "reform" forever obligatory in this context. (My Irish granny used to say "There are none so indignant as the justly accused." Perhaps that applies here... perhaps not. )

Anyway, back to monitoring. Poor choice of words by a career educrat who... let's face it ... would have to be INCREDIBLY politically tone-deaf to use that particular verb at this particular point in time? Or something more significant?

The gentleman's remarks have created a bit of a stir in the edublogosphere. A medium-sized (at this point) brouhaha, one might say. Hard to get a good look at this.... what with the rockets' red glare. So, how significant is this....ummmmm.... *monitoring*?


>>>During the Obama administration's first term, I served as Assistant Secretary for Communications and Outreach in the U.S. Department of Education, where one of my jobs was to monitor criticism of our policies and develop our responses. One of the people I monitored pretty closely was Diane Ravitch. Being a native New Yorker, I am very familiar with her name and reputation and in the interest of finding common ground, I reached out to her and brought her in to sit with the Secretary and share her thoughts. She and I also did a panel discussion together in Florida and I routinely exchanged emails with her.

Over the years, her criticism of the administration became more and more strident. It was increasingly clear that she was not interested in a genuine conversation with us but rather was interested in driving her anti-administration message, even if it meant resorting to tactics that are beneath someone of her stature: ad hominem attacks on the secretary, cherry-picking data, setting up straw man arguments, taking language out of context and distorting its meaning, and ignoring sound evidence that conflicts with her point of view. At a certain point, I made the decision that, rather than engage with her, we would ignore her and, for the most part, we did.

Now that I have left government, I continue to track the national dialogue on-line. For example, I read the other day that Dr. Ravitch's blog has just received its six millionth page view. I extend my congratulations to her. She clearly has a following and with tens of thousands of tweets and thousands of blog posts behind her, she has earned it. However, I was taken aback to read the following passage in Friday's New York Times in an article about the new assessment in New York aligned with Common Core standards:>>>.
the rest:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-cunningham/ravitch-redux_b_3768887.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003&ir=Education

[HooptieWagon]

1. No shock.

Given the context of illegal govt spying, threatening journalists, kill lists, etc....I'd be surprised if Obama Admin wasn't closely watching political opponents. Hell, they're already spying on OWS and XL Pipeline demonstrators. Anyone who is a potential threat or embarrassment to the Corporate State appears to be fair game.

[chimpymustgo]

2. Big money's at state here. Of course they're using every tool available to track dissent.

[Squinch]

3. The descriptions of Ravitch's positions are different from what I have read from the horse's mouth.

I'm thinking Peter is spinning.

And there was a reason her criticism became more and more strident. And if anyone is monitoring this, they should read Ravitch's blog to find out what those reasons are.

Or maybe spend a week or so in a school building. Maybe meet a child or two, so they aren't completely in the dark about the characteristics of children.

"Not interested in genuine conversation." These guys make me sick.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. The misrepresentation is one thing. The "monitoring" is creepy.

The usual back-and-forth of public debate should... ideally, anyway, clarify the misrepresentation.

I , for one, don't want the US Department of Ed "monitoring" my public comments and criticism. They can ... and should ....read/hear them. They can refute them if they are able.

"Monitoring" carries a different implication altogether.

[Squinch]

10. Exactly. And a threat that they will use them against you. We are open about it, so should they be.

[The Second Stone]

5. Some critics are given the royal treatment

studied and given a platform. Others are expected to shut up. Which do you suppose we are?

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Knowing what we're talking about proves to be a burden in this debate.

I've accepted that.


But do we need to be "monitored"?

[liberal_at_heart]

7. hell they did it to OWS. Why would we expect anything different for any other criticism?

My son has personally suffered under Race to the Top. I am saving money right now. I am determined to have him private school by next year. Chicago has closed 50 schools, and Philadelphia is taking a loan to open its public schools this year. These problems are too big for them to squash public debate and criticism on. They certainly haven't been able to squash the criticism of the NSA spying.

[Octafish]

8. How utterly un-democratic.

The way things are going all-Reagan, all-the-time; the day will soon be here when it's official policy of the Democratic Party to abolish the Department of Education.

[geek tragedy]

9. You mean agencies that make policy pay attention to criticism and formulate responses to those

criticisms?

Shocking!!!