Some of my writing is included, accurately quoted and linked, but presented in such a way as to -- intentionally I believe -- undermine the validity of what I wrote, as well as to present an inacurate cross-section of my experience. She quotes two punch-line sentences of all my KIPP/charter analysis, and then writes: "He also loathes charter schools in general. Yet he is really hurt by his students' attitudes." This is followed by a paragaph-length exercept about my disappointment surrounding the attitudes of many of my students, particularly some basketball players. She fails to include the conclusion of that particular post, the one about how those disappointments were redeemed by my Saturday Academy kids and the dedication and commitment they have shown to furthering their education, closing gaps, and achieving success.
After that out-of-context citation, there is this snide remark: "The KIPP "robots" are all about changing those attitudes."
I don't think this was just sloppy work; I think it was deliberate. I think it was another increasingly common attempt to paint charter school employees as the only teachers truly committed to, and capable of effecting change with their students and within their communities. Because I do not choose to work against public education, am I somehow not as effective, committed, or interested in promoting excellence in the student populations I work with? Is our entire school similarily under-committed?
Worse still, I think it was a back-handed comdemnation of my students. They aren't in a KIPP environment, therefore they come up short. They aren't in an elite boutique school, therefore they have poor attitudes and don't care about success. If only I made them walk in straight lines and scream chants each morning about how cool their teachers are...
UPDATE: I've exchanged some email with this blogger, and feel better about things.