Interesting discussion about transparency…
January 30, 2007
I have been following an interesting discussion in the comments of my recent post about Transparency gone too far. I keep going back to Christian’s post on anonymity, or rather the lack thereof. I keep going back to one singular question…
In this age of the Internet, is there such a thing as anonymity any more?
When I started blogging, it never occurred to me that I needed to consider hiding my identity. It seemed natural not to.
The author of the original post in question posted this in the comments:
Yeah, you definitely don’t want to say stuff like this with your name or workplace attached to it. Mine is an interesting position on the continuum of blogs: I’m anonymous because I don’t want to censor myself in situations like yesterday, but I also like to engage with people on issues of curriculum and instruction. Does that make it weird for people who interact with me on these various blogs? I don’t know. I just want to be able to tell the truth about how urban public education looks to me.
Ben’s point about the danger of venting obscuring real issues or solutions is well-taken. Ideally, the point of all the reading and writing on the web is to find more solutions and more success. I think that it’s important to bring out not only the issues that we face with students and parents and culture and content and NCLB and all of those challenges, but also the issues that we face inside our own schools.
Understandably, those of you speaking in public with your names attached shouldn’t air the dirty laundry. But the management — or mismanagement — of schools is definitely part of the reason our educational system isn’t working as well as it could be. I never really knew that until I became a teacher, and so I feel like it’s worth sharing especially when it gets overwhelming. So thanks for reading and engaging. Having a voice, even to a small audience, is helpful
I think the part of this discussion that most strikes me is this statement, “Understandably, those of you speaking in public with your names attached shouldn’t air the dirty laundry.”
Does that mean those folks who choose to remain anonymous should air the dirty laundry?
I am certainly not claiming we should spin public education to be all rosy and flowers, but how much of the underground frustrations and backoffice conversations should we broadcast? Is is any wonder that bloggers are sometimes considered to be teachers who get frustrated with the job and take to the blog as a type of whistle-blowing? Miguel has a great piece on this, based on an article in the Houston Chronicle.
Notice I mention public education, because private schools are a whole different breed. But isn’t it interesting that the article mentions Vicki Davis, and isn’t Westwood a private school? The sole point I make is that bloggers can get into trouble with the desire to remain anonymous in a public school setting.
Cue Christian:
Be public about who you are, what role you have…anonymity while somewhat logical at first has no real currency in time. Give one of your decently tech-savvy kids 1 hour and challenge them to find the identity of any anonymous blogger. And then wonder how long it’ll take your boss if they become curious or get an anonymous email from an ‘interested’ colleague.
Yup. That is my worry.
Continuing the comments discussion, Bill Bishop popped in and left this thought…
Wow! From a legal perspective, I would say that he could be looking for another job. If you are going to vent, you should do it in a professional way. Although, we could all find something to agree with in his/her post, the way he/she went about the post lacks tact. I have posts at my site that may or may not relate to my experiences, but I hope that I never get mad enough to blog it in an unprofessional way. If I do someone point it out to me and I will remove it. Chris your title for this post may be the understatement of the year. Transparency gone to far: I’d say so!
To which our original author responded…
WBishop, do you think that having these sorts of posts out in the world is useful? More or less useful than something that “may or may not relate” to reality? Aside from the risk I’m taking of getting fired if somehow my anonymity is compromised, your other objection seems to be my tone. I can understand that, because I’m definitely harsh.
Question, though: Do you think I could have communicated the same reality in a more “professional” or tactful way? Would my words lose some of their impact if I described with great respect and deference what it’s like to struggle against a bureaucracy of the incompetent?
I guess I’m just not sure how you decide when transparency becomes a bad thing or goes too far. I’m comfortable with the risk, and I feel it’s a small risk. So is it crossing the line when transparency shows us things we don’t want to see? If transparency never reveals anything uncomfortable about our institutions, are we really being honest about what’s going on in urban public education?
Tough questions for a tough issue.
I don’t claim to have any good insight into this, I can see both sides of the coin. What do you think?
Posted in General
content rss
January 30th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I have written the author of the article in the Houston Chronicle who implied that I Vicki Davis (cool cat teacher blog) and Bud Hunt (Bud the Teacher) blog under pseudonyms. I think she fit some cool names to her story and was innacurate. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I don’t know if I would have seen it otherwise!
January 30th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I don’t think I’ll ever reach that level of transparency myself. Of course, I love my job so much that I don’t really have much to vent about (I get paid to play with paint. Who can beat that?), but when I do need to let it all out I do so on a hidden, password protected blog that only certain few people (mostly family) can access.
So it’s not anonymity per se since those who can see it know who I am, but it is in that I know certain people who might dislike my … shall we say rants? … will most likely never see them.
Some would argue that password protecting your blog means it’s not really a blog any more. I can see there side of the argument, but I’m still having a conversation there.
It’s just one behind a closed door.
OK, I’ll stop rambling now.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:19 am
I revisited the post Day of Conflict; I felt that I owed the author at least that before replying to his comments. After revisiting the post I still feel that the article is less than professional for a number of reasons. Allow me to elaborate.
I have been in situations where I feel exactly the same way. I understand the need to expose incompetence at its roots. I do not however agree with the tone used. As an educator there is a degree of professionalism (tact) that we should use with our colleagues, even our administrators. Therefore, I think that the situation could have been presented in a more tactful or professional way. The lame duck comment was a bit much. Also, I find that there are two sides to every coin. What would the AP write about the situation if he had a blog? Was the AP getting complaints from teachers not wanting to attend the meeting because they needed to work on their grades? If so, I would understand why the AP didn’t want anyone meeting before grades were submitted.
We all struggle against a bureaucracy of incompetence, but incompetence like many things is in the eye of the beholder. Transparency is clear or should be clear by its very definition. Transparency is being open and honest. The author was open and honest and I commend him for sharing the story, but the name-calling and slight racism was a bit much. What if the AP was a big white guy? Would the author point out the fact that he was white? Why was the race of the AP important to the story? This troubles me because I’m not sure where the author was going with the comment. This is sad because the post could have been useful had it been written with more tact. Experience and age pays great dividends!
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:30 am
WBishop, thanks for your perspective. I agree that the race of the AP had nothing to do with the story. At least not with this particular story. I think I mentioned it because it seems to be part of a larger issue of race at our school (which is about 50% AA and 50% Latino) that I haven’t figured out how to really talk about yet. I see how, since you don’t know me or my own racial background, all you have to go by is what I wrote and that it does sound off-base.
Thank you for reading what I wrote fairly, and taking the time to explain what you saw in it. You helped me realize that I should make a few key edits to that post, which I did. Thanks also to this blog for creating a space for the discussion and raising the questions in the first place.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
I wrote about a similar USA Today article back in the fall. If you read the comments, you’ll see a response by the teacher in question. I still maintain my position that anonymity doesn’t have much of a place but I’m less adamant about it now.
http://ideasandthoughts.org/2006/09/17/blog-rage/