Aaron Regunberg: History and Education Reform
Friday, October 21, 2011
In the summer of 1831, an enslaved black man in Virginia named Nat Turner led a number of fellow slaves in an armed insurrection, traveling from plantation to plantation to free other blacks and attack white slaveowners. Around fifty white Virginians were killed before a massive military mobilization by the state crushed the uprising. Militias executed most of the slaves involved, and white mobs across Virginia murdered hundreds more.
But panic had already spread through the South’s white population. In Virginia, the fear was so great that the Virginia General Assembly actually began to debate whether the institution of slavery had become so excessively dangerous to the security of whites that ithad to be abolished.

This proposition, of course, represented too great a threat to the economic interests of Virginia’s slaveowning elites. Instead, a different approach was chosen, one that led the Virginia General Assembly to pass two new sets of laws: the first, and more well-known, made it illegal for any white person to teach any black person to read or write; the second, which we rarely hear about, mandated that every slaveowner provide for the ‘moral education’ of his slaves by bringing in white ministers to instill in them the lessons of submission and docility.
Education Battle Shaping Up Today
It’s important to note that the slaveowning elites’ answer to this act of rebellion was not simply to stop slaves from receiving any education at all. Rather, they wanted enslaved blacks to receive a particular kind of education—one that taught them to look up to white culture and society and down on their own heritage, that convinced them that the economicand political system in which they labored was just and fair, and that instilled in them the values of obedience and compliance and rooted out those of independence and critical questioning.
Those of us involved in the current education reform debate in America should see some disturbing similarities between Southern slaveowners’ response to Nat Turner’s Rebellion and the educational landscape we find ourselves in today. Over the past decade, economic and political elites in our country have taken a renewed interest in education. But before all us New York Times-reading liberals get overly excited by this development, we shouldheed the story of antebellum Virginia and ask ourselves an important question—what kind of education is being forced onto America’s most marginalized youth?
The answer is not, in my opinion, very heartening. National elites (conservatives and liberals alike) have set up standardized tests as the raison d’etre for education. They’ve created a policy landscape that makes standardized test scores the foundation on which students, teachers, and schools are evaluated, thereby ensuring that the most relevant goal at every level of the education system is to raise these scores.
Under this system, ‘education’has been reduced to the incredibly narrow definition of whether or not students can regurgitate a very limited set of facts, understandings, and ideas—facts, understandings, and ideas that are dictated by the political and economic elites who write our standardized tests. Just as slaveowning white men mandated the values and limited skills that enslaved blacks were to be taught after Nat Turner’s Rebellion, so today do our nation’s elites mandate the values and limited skills that students need to learn to graduate from high school, that teachers need to teach to keep their jobs, that schools need to focus on to maintain their autonomy, and that states need to emphasize to receive federal funding.

System Doesn’t Emphasize Critical Thinking

What are these values and limited skills? Visit a ‘no-excuse’ charter school like Blackstone Valley Prep, which has its elementary school students take standardized tests at the end of every class period every single day, or Achievement First, which has been accused of public humiliation and shunning to instill obedience in its young people. Talk to a teacher who has abandoned project-based learning in order to teach to the test, or take a few minutes to page through a NECAP exam.
Looking at these (and virtually any other) aspects of mainstream education policy today makes it very clear that our system is not emphasizing critical thinking. We’re not supporting the ability to question. We’re not asking students to think deeply about problems around them and use independent thought to come up with solutions. We’re not training students to care about their neighborhoods, to feel pride in their cultures, or to think about the greater good.We’re not, in short, giving students access to any of the values or skills that oppressed populations need in order to create social change and improve the conditions of their communities. In fact, we—like our Virginian friends before us—are actively barring these skills from being taught.
Asking Tough Questions
Now, I’m (of course) not saying that most people who support test-based, no-excuse learning have sinister motives akin to those of 1830s Virginian slaveowners. Most of the folks working to expand these systems are sincere, hard-working individuals who believe they’re doing the right thing. But when we get higher up the decision-making chains of these organizations, I think we need to ask some tough questions.

Virginia’s slaveowners, in formulating a response to black rebellion, understood the critical role education can play in either inspiring social change or maintaining social control. Too many of us today fail to recognize this nuance. We think of education as a monolithically positive entity, but it’s not—it is simply the process by which we shape young people’s minds, and that means it can either be incredibly constructive or immensely damaging. We can either give students the tools and confidence they will need to stand up for themselves and work to change an unjust world, or we can force on them the blinders, submissive acceptance, and behavioral modification that our unjust world requires to keep them in their place (or to turn them into oppressors themselves). I challenge all of us in Rhode Island to think critically about both education and education reform. There needs to be some nuance in our understanding of these systems, or we run the risk of confusing repression with liberation, thereby making the social change most of us strive for even harder to obtain.
If you valued this article, please LIKE GoLocalProv.com on Facebook by clicking HERE.
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.



Comments:
Joseph Kay
12:21pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
“Now, I’m (of course) not saying that most people who support test-based, no-excuse learning have sinister motives akin to those of 1830s Virginian slaveowners.” Yes, you are. Maybe not directly, but by foolishly comparing the motives of antebellum slaveowners in the post-Nat Turner era to current attempts to reform education you most certainly are. You should be ashamed of yourself for writing this article. Not only are your claims in this article erroneous, nebulous, and careless on all accounts, your comparison completely belittles the cruel realities and harsh conditions of antebellum slavery, as well as the urgent need to reform an educational system that continues to perpetuate the social conditions of our nation’s poor.
The entire social structure of the South (perhaps even the North), as dictated by wealthy slaveowners, was dependent on the perpetuation of slavery; Turner’s Rebellion only forced some slaveowners to tighten their grips, which also included the breaking apart of families by selling sons and daughters to slaveowners in other states, in addition to restricting slaves’ access to read. It is important to note that the few fortunate slaves who could read taught themselves.
On the other hand, the goal of education reformers and charter schools more broadly is to end the achievement gap that plagues historically impoverished and disenfranchised students, thereby offering them more opportunities for equality and happiness, a way out of poverty, a chance to receive a college education. Rather than advocates for slavery, the charter schools and reform advocates you call out are merely advocates of civil rights. Of course you fail to mention this, perhaps only because it does not fit in with your convenient comparison. Finally, is it possible for you to provide some real substance and evidence to support your claims, other than Nat Turner’s Rebellion? Just awful.
Involved Providence Parent
3:54pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
Aaron, must be nice to postulate about the needs of poor public school students atop your private school educated, ivy league perch. How dare you compare the advocates of education reform to slave owners. While this fight may be a convenient little college cap stone project for you, many of the reformers have been in this fight since well before you started your $25,000 per year private education, which the vast majority of children in Rhode Island can only dream of. You are nothing but an uninformed punk making destructive and false statements. I truly hope your professors take into consideration your utter failure to do any real first-hand research into this issue when grading your work. I also hope you’ll think twice before speaking publicly on this issue again, because to date your efforts have only served to perpetuate a system that for years has been failing far too many of the children that depend on it to elevate them to a better life.
Aaron Regunberg
9:35pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
Hey folks. I understand this was a provocative concept, so I guess I should be ready for things to get a bit personal. And Involved, I think you're right to draw attention to my own incredibly privileged position, removed from the public schools as it is. If it makes you feel any better about my sincerity, however, I'll let you know I've been working with students in Providence's schools for four years, have some very, very close friendships with a number of Providence high schoolers, and plan on making my home here in Providence and continuing to work with students for as long as I can conceivably see into my future (this is all to say that I don't view the fate of Providence's schools as some abstract research assignment, but rather as the most central, important thing in my life other than my family).
To Joseph, again, I think the motives of most people in the corporate education reform movement (as differentiated from what I consider to be more legitimate, community-led democratic educational reform movements) are really earnest. They are working super hard cause they think they're doing the right thing. But I would argue that the white ministers brought in to teach slaves probably thought they were doing the right thing, just as missionaries whose job it is to go into communities and tell indigenous folks that they are wrong and they have to totally replace their cultures and religions think they are doing the right thing. I think in both cases they are actually doing paternalistic and problematic things because they are assuming that their values are correct.
Going back to Involved and the no first-hand research issue, I actually visited Amistad Academy in New Haven very recently. Again, it was full of a lot of earnest, hardworking people, and there were a number of things they were definitely doing right (and we should learn from those things!). But I think they were also all doing something very problematic--intensive behavioral modification. What I saw was a school full of children whose values are being very consciously shaped to unquestioningly obey authority. And so I think the comparison I made is very valid.
Once more, back to Joseph, you say that the entire social structure in the South and North was dependent on slavery. Do you not think that our entire social structure today is dependent on inequality and, to a degree, poverty? Don't those with the most power in our society require this inequality? Definitely interested to hear your responses, this is a good conversation to have.
Informed Parent
2:15am on Saturday, October 22, 2011
“But I would argue that the white ministers brought in to teach slaves probably thought they were doing the right thing.” REALLY? Based on what evidence? Even the briefest glance at slave narratives would suggest otherwise.
American slavery was a 250 year violent cultural destruction -- murder, rape, the systematic tearing apart of families, torture. Are you out of your mind making this comparison?? Like obtuse comparisons to the holocaust it’s a profound insult to everyone who experienced the horror and everyone who lives with the legacy.
Or maybe I’m wrong and the roughly 10,000 parents of color who send their children to Achievement First public schools are sooo grateful today that Aaron Regunberg, Brown University student late of tawny private high school, has relieved them of their false consciousness through the exciting discoveries in this essay! Good grief.
If you knew even a little bit more about education and a little bit more about American culture, you might understand that there are legitimate pedagogical alternatives to the suburban neo-progressive self-directed learning environment -- alternatives, for instance, based on the classroom practices of superb teachers of color like Harriet Ball and Jaime Escalante, who believed that self-discipline and behavioral routine were essential prerequisites to freeing the mind.
But, whatever, intellectual disagreements about best school models are not the issue here. The ignorance of this opinion piece leaves its detractors with no work to do, but its arrogance remains infuriating.
Aaron Regunberg
10:17am on Saturday, October 22, 2011
Hey Involved, question: are you actually Bill Fischer, using a sneaky name to mask the fact that you're a paid lobbyist? If you're not, I'm very sorry for this comment and I apologize (just checking out a hunch). If so, then that's kinda pathetic, though certainly funny.
Informed Parent
12:33am on Sunday, October 23, 2011
I'm a parent and educator who has been following this story from the beginning and prefers, for better or worse, to stay anonymous and out of your rough and tumble political world. Occasionally something in the media bugs me enough that I can't stay totally quiet.
Joseph Kay
6:18pm on Monday, October 24, 2011
“Do you not think that our entire social structure today is dependent on inequality and, to a degree, poverty? Don't those with the most power in our society require this inequality?”
I agree with you on this point. I also think that elements of our nation’s public educational system have historically perpetuated this inequality, particularly in urban (and rural) areas, impacting racial minorities and lower-class whites the hardest. It is a system that needs to be fixed, and there are no easy answers as to how to go about fixing it.
Nonetheless, while I hate to return to the analogy you proposed regarding antebellum proslavery advocates, is it so hard for you to liken today’s educational reformers to the antebellum antislavery advocates and abolitionists from the North who worked to bring freedom to an enslaved population? Again, I would suggest that the goals of educational reformers are to provide opportunities of equality, freedom and happiness for a population that has historically been deprived of these basic civil rights.
Without a proper level of educational achievement, what choice(s) do students from these areas have? Put simply, they do not have the same choices you had while growing up. To be sure, the prospect of going to college at Brown would not even enter into the life goals of today’s poverty-stricken and lower-class youth. I think you have to admit, Aaron, that you are speaking from a privileged position. Who are you to assume what is right or wrong for parents who believe that charter schools provide a better alternative/choice for their children’s success?
When you say that charter-school students are instilled with “values of obedience and compliance” rather that critical thinking or the “values or skills that oppressed populations need in order to create social change and improve the conditions of their communities,” I think you are stepping outside your bounds. For one, what evidence do you have of this? And two, how is this different from public schools? I would imagine that a basic reading comprehension would be a good start to life-long critical thinking learning – something of which many underprivileged kids are deprived. If public schools have failed to instill basic reading comprehension in a significant portion of underprivileged students, why shouldn’t an alternative (perhaps better) *choice* be provided for those students?
Aaron Regunberg
9:01pm on Monday, October 24, 2011
Joseph, you make a bunch of good points, and I appreciate your tone. First off, I want to make clear that I'm not talking about 'charter-schools' in general. I think Rhode Island has some charter schools--for example, the Learning Community and the International Charter School--that are doing amazing work. I'm talking particularly about the no-excuse model that puts a huge, huge emphasis on standardized tests.
As far as evidence, if you look at the NYC charter renewal reports, there is a very clear pattern among AF schools saying they are not developing student voice or critical thinking. Or you can talk to some of the parents who pulled their students out of Blackstone Valley Prep for this reason.
But your point about basic skills is well taken; certainly our current schools aren't doing a good job. So let's fix them. And let's draw on the lessons we can learn from charters. But I think we need to go for the right alternative. I guess my question for you is, would you send your children to a no-excuse school? Visit one and really think if this is what you'd want for your kids. If you decide yes, then fine, I am wrong. But I think a whole lot of middle-class folks are willing to say these schools are what poor kids need, but aren't right for their own kids. And that's not right.