<p>
</p>
<p>Hoedown, I’m sorry that you might feel offended by my “constant” derision of people who work in higher derision. Rather than offering an apology, could I possibly point out that I my expressions of dismay at a CERTAIN group of people does not mean that I have no respect for the overwhelming majority of educators. I believe that the difference is very clear as the group I feel is CONTINUING to blemish the entire sector is easily identifiable. </p>
<p>In this regard, I won’t offer any apologies to frauds such as Lloyd Thacker nor to the people who make a mockery of the integrity of the survey. For the record, you have often expressen that you and your institution goes to great lengths to answer every survey, and do so with accuracy and expediency. Further, your institution is obviously hiring people who are competent. However, can you really tell me that this is universal, especially in light of pretty clear admission of school officials that they DO manipulate the data to their benefit or simply DO not have the knowledge to answer the questions presented to them. </p>
<p>For the record, I do criticize the educators who I feel have been able to abuse a system where little accountability and excellence is the norm and not the exception, as well as the people and organizations that protect the bad apples without much concern for the rest of the basket or the constituents they are SUPPOSED to serve. </p>
<p>Lastly, I believe that my “derision” is rarely without the foundation of research and adequate documentation. I do not expect everyone --or even the majority-- to agree with my views or criticisms. I have no problems in recognizing my possible errors in judgment, and would gladly align myself with people who can show where I failed. For instance, in the case of Lloyd Thacker, I have read his Education Conservancy with the HOPE that his group could eventually develop a platform that is novel and worth … implementing. Has this happened? Or do we have to remain satisfied with hollow grandstanding and … nothing else. I do not criticize Thacker because he was a GC or wears jeans; I criticize him for being an underhanded hypocrite who panders to the “establishment” under the guise of serving the poor and abused public. His “ideas” are based on the notion that the commercialization of the education sector is destroying it, and that the “establishment” is a much a victim as students and their families. Yet, that did not stop the “gentleman” to obtain his startup funding from a group that surely has exploited the marker through … a commercial venture. But he does not stop there: the other culprits are the parents who mercilessly push their children towards a deep precipice. And his idea of finding a solution is based on polling the same exact people who seemingly bear no responsibility in the current neurotic state of admissions, and conducting meetings that are close to the public. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed surely rules! </p>
<p>I find it completely unfortunate that a small number of educators have accepted the “leadership” of such a poorly defined organization. Of course, it should not be too hard for a cynic to recognize the motivations of a certain subgroup of educators. Transparency is most definitely NOT one of them. </p>
<p>Our society deserves a lot better.</p>