Why I throw bombs

I had an interesting email exchange with a first-year TFA corps member that I'm sharing with his permission because there are a lot of new folks on this email list who may feel similarly.  Here is the email he sent me last night:

 

Greetings,

I am a TFA teacher who teaches at a [top charter school network]. While I appreciate the thoughtful analysis hidden in between the anti-union fervor (though I consider myself quite progressive I do have my own criticisms of unions as they operate today), I cannot abide by the right wing narrative and language you perpetuate. Terms like "thuggish" to describe unions reeks of classism. I would expect that hyperbole from the cheerleading squad at Fox News, but not from an ed reformer. There are ways to make valid  points without feeding the fire of anti-labor sentiment. If you want an audience who is not of the wealthy investor class  and does not see the world in terms of output and maximization to join the fight for ed reform, please refrain from using divisive discourse while discussing unions. You can make your point without perpetuating stereotypes (like I just did with my stab at the investor class). Until then, take me off your e-mail. Now that I've said my piece I'm going to get back to lesson planning for my kids.     

 

My reply:

 

I was one of the founders of TFA 21 years ago.  Forgive me if this comes across as condescending, but your response is typical of first-year corps members.  Usually by the second year, most TFAers figure out that I'm right and am not exaggerating at all.  The system is just as crazy as I describe it, and the unions are just as thuggish as I describe them.

I'm a huge fan of [your charter network] -- you're lucky to be working there and I hope you're having a great experience.

 

His reply:

 

I appreciate your reasonable follow up. I apologize if I came off as heavy handed and rash in my response, but I was trying to convey a sense that if you argue with the language of punditry, people (like me) can get turned off to the message.

 

There is no doubt that teacher's union leaders and many veteran teachers are a severe obstacle to ed reform. I experienced a bit of that this past summer as I had one of my best institute students ejected from summer school (and held back) because he refused to take an exam one day as a result of emotional distress (the asst. principal took his "disrespect" personally).

 

Anyhow, I was coming off a 70 hour work week and a bad case of the Monday's and that came out in my e-mail. I'm very passionate about policy issues and the way debates are framed so I tend to get carried away. 

 

Upon reflection, I would like to continue to receive your e-mails as I do learn a lot from the articles you link to. Finally, as I'm sure you are a very busy individual, I appreciate your response. If I knew you were a TFA alum, I probably wouldn't have been so quick to question your intentions. Thank you for your time.

 

My reply:

 

Thanks for your reply. I'm happy to keep you on my list. 

 

Re. the tone of my emails, I consider myself a reasonable, moderate person, but I am very deliberately not that way in my emails for a number of reasons:

 

1) I truly am outraged by a system that screws millions of kids, especially the most vulnerable ones -- and by the organized adult interests (most notably the teachers' unions) that fight to maintain such an immoral status quo.

 

2) I think we are in a state of permanent war against these interests, who will only give ground when under enormous pressure. Of course we'll have to cut deals at every step of the way, but the exact nature of those deals -- meaning how quickly can we save how many kids? -- totally depends on how much pressure we can apply. Exhibit A is the deal Michelle Rhee held out for -- and eventually got -- in DC.

 

3) The reason I spend so many hours every week on my emails is because I want to inform, persuade, and inspire as many people as I can. I want people to get ANGRY and get involved!  But that won't happen if nobody reads my emails -- and people are drowning in reading these days -- so I look for every opportunity be provocative and entertaining, even if it means occasionally pissing off some folks. 

 

4) I deliberately stake out extreme positions because it shifts the playing field and makes other reformers appear more moderate. A simple example: I support targeted voucher/tax credit programs on their merits, but also for political reasons: the unions are so deathly afraid of them that if you can put them on the table in a serious way, the unions will make remarkable compromises on charter schools, teacher evaluations, tenure reform, etc.

 

Keep up the fight!