Dr Lillian Lowery is the state superintendent of schools in Maryland. She took over the post in July 2012. Recently, she pushed through the state’s role as fiscal agent for the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers with the state’s Board of Public Works, who approved the contract despite a few real concerns.
Shortly after the vote, the Chalk Face, an agenda-riddled blog, posted an article entitled, “Why Is Maryland taking Florida’s Place as PARCC Henchman?” The article was written by Morna McDermott and carries the imprimatur of no one but her; however, it accuses the Maryland state superintendent of schools with money laundering:
According to PARCC’s Senior Vice President Laura Slover the bulk of the federal money “passes through” the state to the contractors. They include ETS and Pearson, which already produce Maryland’s current assessment tests [sic]. Ohhhhh …… money laundering. OK.
Dr Lillian Lowery
I’m not quite sure of the meaning of the last two sentences—and they aren’t actually sentences—but it seems the writer is accusing the Maryland state superintendent of schools with a federal crime.
The context of the accusation includes several facts, such as Maryland’s use of Pearson and ETS to develop the state’s current NCLB-required tests, so the question remains: Should I consider this a joke? It doesn’t seem to be sarcastic in tone, so I’m going to go with, no, it’s not a joke. Dr Lowery’s a public figure, and as such, open to public criticism like this, to a point, but a charge of money laundering, especially with public funds, would be a very serious offense. I seriously hope this was just bad hyperbole, although it wasn’t written as such. Whatever it is, charges of a federal crime should not be made without at least some editorial control.
Earlier in the article, the writer implies that Dr Lowery’s connections with the Broad Academy back in 2004 and with other corporations while she served as the superintendent in Delaware have caused her to endorse policies—and convince the Board of Public Works to approve contracts—that are not in the best interest of our children.
A hallmark of the Broad-style leadership is closing existing schools rather than attempting to improve them, … imposing high-stakes test-based accountability systems on teachers and students. … The brusque and often punitive management style of Broad-trained leaders has frequently alienated parents and teachers and sparked protests. … Eli Broad and the Broad Foundation are preceeding [sic] by maybe only Bill Gates in the charge to dismantle public education via venture philanthropy, erode teacher union rights, democratic states [sic] rights, and children’s privacy rights.
Dr Lowery has done none of these things in Maryland: imposition of standardized tests was done long before she took over, and the other characteristic policies of “Broad-style leadership” have been largely out of her control. From my perspective, this is a completely ad hominem attack, and I wish critics of standardized testing would start addressing the issues—there are plenty of them, to be sure—rather than attacking the educators who push them. For those who don’t know what an ad hominem argument is—a group that would seem to include Ms McDermott and the editors of The Chalk Face—it’s an argument that an idea has merit (or not) based entirely on the credentials of the person advancing it.
Dr Lowery is an educator. She began her career as an English teacher for middle and high school students, if my memory serves from when she was first introduced to me. Her illustrious career has taken her to Indiana, Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland, not necessarily in that order.
But in this case, the writer has chosen not to report anything about Dr Lowery except for the one or two associations that seem to serve the writer’s purpose. It’s cherry-picking at its worst. It’s true Dr Lowery has credentials that associate her with the Broad Academy, and solely because of that, it is maintained, Maryland’s acceptance of the role as PARCC fiscal agent is tainted with the ideas espoused by the Broad Academy. The logical albeit absurd conclusion is that every idea Dr Lowery will ever stand behind in her professional career will be likewise tainted, regardless of the merit of any of those ideas.
I’ve met Dr Lowery, and I can assure you, she cares very deeply about the students of Maryland and of the other states in the PARCC consortium. I myself disagree with the testing schedules being pushed by PARCC, find many of the test questions poorly written, and think Pearson and ETS are charging the taxpayers too much money. However, my argument has nothing to do with the Broad Academy, just with the terms of the contract, which, as I have pointed out, are inaccurate in many respects and highly debatable in others. I simply see things differently than PARCC sees them, but to imply that Dr Lowery agreed to take on the role of PARCC fiscal agent for any criminal or unethical reason is preposterous. It’s like the Republicans calling the Democrats unpatriotic. Remember how that turned out?
Finally, do you expect school officials to respond to criticism about where they went to school? You can’t honestly expect the state superintendent of schools to answer questions about the Broad Academy, can you? In other words, by arguing this point, you have essentially killed any hope of engaging school officials in constructive discussions about educating our children.
All I read in posts like the one presented on the Chalk Face is a personal attack that is not justified in order to push an agenda. But that’s what people who don’t know what they’re talking about, don’t know how to assert a reasonable argument based on the contract itself, and just like hearing themselves talk about associations from a dozen years ago do, isn’t it?
