For over 20 years I've been on a mailing list of what you might consider mostly "traditional" teachers, professors, and others involved in education. Math gets a lot of focus on this list, and common core isn't strongly smiled upon but California's (now replaced) 1997 math standards are.
Last week someone on that list was asked if they knew anyone who might want to speak to the national press about California's new race-based math framework, and posted that request to the list. I replied that just the day before I had written about those standards. Twenty minutes later I received an email from a reporter for a national network asking if I'd like to offer some commentary.
Over the next few days that reporter and I exchanged a couple dozen emails. She was taken aback when I agreed to be interviewed but with the caveat that I'd make my own recording of the interview. "We don't allow that", she said, and then she asked why I wanted that. Was it to post it on my blog? I explained that I would want such a recording only in the event that I felt that deceptive editing caused me to be misinterpreted. She ran my requirement (this is non-negotiable, I told her) up the flagpole and it came back approved. Then she asked about conducting the interview at or in front of school.
Yes, I know it's public property, etc. etc. etc., but I still said no. A district employee with a district school behind him would give my district administration a foothold to claim that I was trying to speak for, with the imprimatur of, the school district, if they disagreed and wanted to cause problems for me. The reporter had originally suggested Zoom was an interview option, but that eventually was changed--it must be in person. On Thursday evening she said she'd contact me on Friday, and when she didn't, I emailed her Saturday morning to ask again if she had thoughts on other locations. She told me that her boss now wanted to run the story Monday (tomorrow) morning, and that the last chance to interview me would be at 7:30 Monday morning. I told her that school starts at 8:05 and 7:30 wouldn't work, so she told me the interview with me is off. I presume they found someone else.
There's no special reason to interview me, as anyone could make the same points that I would make. However, the reporter seemed to imply that this interview was a great honor for me and that I was being difficult. I see things differently. She, her bosses, and the network have their agenda, and I have mine, and if I'm to help them make money (by being a part of their story) then I want to ensure my agenda gets a fair hearing. "We don't allow that" rang in my ears.
So, to get my version of the story out, I'm working on a more detailed blog post about those standards. I don't know when it will post, but here's a teaser: expect a cameo by Margaret Thatcher!
5 comments:
You were dead to right on the requirement you tape the interview. Remember the selective “editing” on the George Zimmerman 911 call? You have other conservatives with you. Mark Levin has been regularly contacted for an interview by the networks, and they need two hours for a 20-30 minute show. He’s refused, he said either live or live to tape, “No, I don’t trust you!”
Limbaugh put out on his show when they let a reporter in for an article, and within an hour, they could tell it would be a hatchet job. He tooked at the man and said, “You want to lie about us, fine. We can pay you back. I’ll hire a group of detectives, we’ll find out how many illegitimate children you have, how many times you’ve been arrested, when the IRS audited you, and put that out!” He was not happy that someone would challenge like that. Suffice to say, the article was never published.
Can’t wait to rear the full post.
Some good advice I have read: never talk to the press. They are experts at promoting their own agenda at your expense, and you're never clever enough to counter their game.
You are absolutely within your rights to have a copy of the interview. Conservatives across the board from school boards to the Oval Office have been subjected to the fanciful editing of the Left. I was wondering when you were going to address the new standards. I read about them again the other day. Frankly if I were you, I'd look to finish out my years in some tax friendly state and move there ASAP. I just don't see any of the deep blue states improving economically in the remainder of Biden's questionable tenure.
Ellen K, I wrote about them briefly at
https://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2021/05/equity-means-nobody-sees-over-fence.html
I want to dig a little deeper into the standards themselves, though, and that's taking a bit of time.
I saw that graphic 5 years ago. It's as silly now as it was then. Meanwhile, NYC is actually considering dismantling entire GT programs including IB and P courses. I saw this on a small scale my last year. The result across the board was a watering down of content and far fewer students actually taking AP exams even when the exams were subsidized. My oldest grandchild is a 10 year old GT student who specializes in science and math. He wants to be a scientist. I hope by the time he gets to the point where he can do some of the heavy disciplines they're still in the curriculum. I fear that like grammar and handwriting, some educrat will decide physics and calculus are "too hard" and therefore everyone must be denied access since only a few can be successful.
Post a Comment