During a Curriculum and Evaluation meeting on November 15th, the agenda included a discussion on Learning 2025, a national commission on student-centered and equity-focused education.
Bill Daggett is listed as the Executive Director of AASA, The School Superintendents Association, the founder of the International Center on Leadership for Education, and the Successful Practices Network. The commission’s chief objective is to safely and equitably prepare all students for a workplace and society for the future.
Notice there is nothing about literacy in their objective.
Daggett has been around for a long time as an education consultant. It was Gerald Bracey, Fellow at the Education Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University, who spoke about Daggett’s false statements in the past. Scott McLeod collected Bracey’s posts in his own at Dangerously Irrelevant, where there is a breakdown of questions on Bill Daggett’s character from 2000.
So what education fad is Daggett selling through this latest commission?
Let’s start briefly with the fad of student-centered learning. That’s code for sitting a student in front of a computer to learn so Big-Tech can profit. We got a taste of that with remote learning when parents discovered it was a lousy way for their children to learn. No one questions student-centered versus teacher-centered learning. What are the advantages and disadvantages to both models and, is this what we want in our public schools?
Having children working off of hand-held computer devices profits Big-Tech, but does it help children learn? Parents might want to ask for peer-reviewed and independent studies that show student-centered learning improves academic achievement. Academic achievement doesn’t seem to be part of the conversation anymore — it’s now about social justice, equity, mental health, and everything else but literacy and academic achievement.
Then you get to the part about Critical Race Theory. Two links embedded on the first page tell us that their mission centers around a good dose of Critical Race Theory in the classroom.
Let’s take a look at Decentering Whiteness from Our American Schools, linked on their page. This site is all about injecting Critical Race Theory into the classroom:
There is a narrative surrounding decentering whiteness in American education spaces. It is substantiated by culturally responsive pedagogy and curriculum. It incorporates trauma-informed practices and whole child support. It names ways that traditional systems oppress and harm children. It identifies ways education structures minoritized students who do not subscribe to the white normative culture and ways of learning. It tells a story of where the work should go and how progress is being made.
This kind of rhetoric and propaganda seeks to do precisely what Condoleeza Rice criticized when she was asked about this new discussion on race relations. She explains why blaming white children for historical events is wrong and why she would like us to find ways to elevate and support black and brown children. As you can see by what Daggett is serving up, this is more of the blame and shame narrative forced on white children while at the same time injecting victimization on black and brown children. Take a look at what Condoleeza Rice said about that.
“I would like Black kids to be completely empowered, to know that they are beautiful in their blackness, but in order to do that I don’t have to make White kids feel bad for being White.”
AASA also links how English teachers must be anti-racist. That means that English teachers must subscribe to the Critical Race Theory worldview. If an English teacher believes what Condoleeza Rice expressed, that’s not acceptable. There is no room for differing views when a statement is made that a teacher “must” do anything.
This worldview of anti-racism is built upon prejudice, hate, and divisiveness. They focus on identities in an attempt to further divide children by race. Parents see this as harmful to children. Parents have been saying they want unity, equality, and respect taught– not hate, prejudice, and blame, and shame.
These consultants reference the National Council of English Teachers whose position statement includes a link to Bringing Black Lives Matter Into the Classroom. This is a political agenda, not a lesson in academics.
Nashua New Hampshire parents may want administrators to address racist acts, behavior, or comments, but are they willing to turn their school into an avenue for political activism and training? And then pay for that?
What these consultants will bring to Nashua has an obvious political bias.
The district would hire a consultant and develop an action plan. Kimberly Sarfde, Assistant Superintendent during her presentation, never mentioned exactly what that would look like in the classroom. The presentation offered a lot of buzzwords and fluff, but little substance.
The cost to taxpayers would be an annual fee of $14,000.00 according to the School Board Members who brought up concerns after Sarde’s presentation. Sarfde gave them a sales job that you might find at a used car sales lot, but she offered the board members no critical analysis.
A good manager will bring their bosses information, including a critical analysis along with the good aspects of any proposed program. Sarfde failed the board members because she offered no critical analysis to help them make an informed decision. This kind of action by an executive at a Fortune 500 company would have Sarfde in the unemployment line. This kind of presentation by senior executives is not acceptable. High-level boards of directors expect honest information that doesn’t just show the good, but also offers them problems that can arise.
Not only should this vendor be rejected, but Assistant Superintendent Sarfde also needs to learn executive skills, and board members should demand that from her in the future. It’s not up to board members to do the research, she should be handing it to them. She should be presenting all of the information about this commission to the board members. Let them then decide if this is good for the district. But what she offered was a poor quality sales job that even the board members questioned when she was done with her presentation.
It was embarrassing to watch.
