The Myth of Charter Schools

November 11, 2010

Diane Ravitch

Waiting for “Superman”

a film directed by Davis Guggenheim

Ordinarily, documentaries about education attract little attention, and seldom, if ever, reach

neighborhood movie theaters. Davis Guggenheim’s Waiting for “Superman” is different. It

arrived in late September with the biggest publicity splash I have ever seen for a documentary.

Not only was it the subject of major stories in Time and New York, but it was featured twice on

The Oprah Winfrey Show and was the centerpiece of several days of programming by NBC,

including an interview with President Obama.

Two other films expounding the same arguments—The Lottery and The Cartel—were released in

the late spring, but they received far less attention than Guggenheim’s film. His reputation as the

director of the Academy Award–winning An Inconvenient Truth, about global warming,

contributed to the anticipation surrounding Waiting for “Superman,” but the media frenzy

suggested something more. Guggenheim presents the popularized version of an account of

American public education that is promoted by some of the nation’s most powerful figures and

institutions.

The message of these films has become alarmingly familiar: American public education is a

failed enterprise. The problem is not money. Public schools already spend too much. Test scores

are low because there are so many bad teachers, whose jobs are protected by powerful unions.

Students drop out because the schools fail them, but they could accomplish practically anything

if they were saved from bad teachers. They would get higher test scores if schools could fire

more bad teachers and pay more to good ones. The only hope for the future of our society,

especially for poor black and Hispanic children, is escape from public schools, especially to

charter schools, which are mostly funded by the government but controlled by private

organizations, many of them operating to make a profit.

The Cartel maintains that we must not only create more charter schools, but provide vouchers so

that children can flee incompetent public schools and attend private schools. There, we are led to

believe, teachers will be caring and highly skilled (unlike the lazy dullards in public schools); the

schools will have high expectations and test scores will soar; and all children will succeed

academically, regardless of their circumstances. The Lottery echoes the main story line of

Waiting for “Superman”: it is about children who are desperate to avoid the New York City

public schools and eager to win a spot in a shiny new charter school in Harlem.

For many people, these arguments require a willing suspension of disbelief. Most Americans

graduated from public schools, and most went from school to college or the workplace without

thinking that their school had limited their life chances. There was a time—which now seems

distant—when most people assumed that students’ performance in school was largely

determined by their own efforts and by the circumstances and support of their family, not by

their teachers. There were good teachers and mediocre teachers, even bad teachers, but in the

end, most public schools offered ample opportunity for education to those willing to pursue it.

The annual Gallup poll about education shows that Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied

with the quality of the nation’s schools, but 77 percent of public school parents award their own

child’s public school a grade of A or B, the highest level of approval since the question was first

asked in 1985.

Waiting for “Superman” and the other films appeal to a broad apprehension that the nation is

falling behind in global competition. If the economy is a shambles, if poverty persists for

significant segments of the population, if American kids are not as serious about their studies as

their peers in other nations, the schools must be to blame. At last we have the culprit on which

we can pin our anger, our palpable sense that something is very wrong with our society, that we

are on the wrong track, and that America is losing the race for global dominance. It is not

globalization or deindustrialization or poverty or our coarse popular culture or predatory

financial practices that bear responsibility: it’s the public schools, their teachers, and their

unions.

The inspiration for Waiting for “Superman” began, Guggenheim explains, as he drove his own

children to a private school, past the neighborhood schools with low test scores. He wondered

about the fate of the children whose families did not have the choice of schools available to his

own children. What was the quality of their education? He was sure it must be terrible. The press

release for the film says that he wondered, ―How heartsick and worried did their parents feel as

they dropped their kids off this morning?‖ Guggenheim is a graduate of Sidwell Friends, the elite

private school in Washington, D.C., where President Obama’s daughters are enrolled. The public

schools that he passed by each morning must have seemed as hopeless and dreadful to him as the

public schools in Washington that his own parents had shunned.

Waiting for “Superman” tells the story of five children who enter a lottery to win a coveted

place in a charter school. Four of them seek to escape the public schools; one was asked to leave

a Catholic school because her mother couldn’t afford the tuition. Four of the children are black

or Hispanic and live in gritty neighborhoods, while the one white child lives in a leafy suburb.

We come to know each of these children and their families; we learn about their dreams for the

future; we see that they are lovable; and we identify with them. By the end of the film, we are

rooting for them as the day of the lottery approaches.

In each of the schools to which they have applied, the odds against them are large. Anthony, a

fifth-grader in Washington, D.C., applies to the SEED charter boarding school, where there are

sixty-one applicants for twenty-four places. Francisco is a first-grade student in the Bronx whose

mother (a social worker with a graduate degree) is desperate to get him out of the New York City

public schools and into a charter school; she applies to Harlem Success Academy where he is

one of 792 applicants for forty places. Bianca is the kindergarten student in Harlem whose

mother cannot afford Catholic school tuition; she enters the lottery at another Harlem Success

Academy, as one of 767 students competing for thirty-five openings. Daisy is a fifth-grade

student in East Los Angeles whose parents hope she can win a spot at KIPP LA PREP, where

135 students have applied for ten places. Emily is an eighth-grade student in Silicon Valley,

where the local high school has gorgeous facilities, high graduation rates, and impressive test

scores, but her family worries that she will be assigned to a slow track because of her low test

scores; so they enter the lottery for Summit Preparatory Charter High School, where she is one of

455 students competing for 110 places.

The stars of the film are Geoffrey Canada, the CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone, which

provides a broad variety of social services to families and children and runs two charter schools;

Michelle Rhee, chancellor of the Washington, D.C., public school system, who closed schools,

fired teachers and principals, and gained a national reputation for her tough policies; David

Levin and Michael Feinberg, who have built a network of nearly one hundred high-performing

KIPP charter schools over the past sixteen years; and Randi Weingarten, president of the

American Federation of Teachers, who is cast in the role of chief villain. Other charter school

leaders, like Steve Barr of the Green Dot chain in Los Angeles, do star turns, as does Bill Gates

of Microsoft, whose foundation has invested many millions of dollars in expanding the number

of charter schools. No successful public school teacher or principal or superintendent appears in

the film; indeed there is no mention of any successful public school, only the incessant drumbeat

on the theme of public school failure.

The situation is dire, the film warns us. We must act. But what must we do? The message of the

film is clear. Public schools are bad, privately managed charter schools are good. Parents clamor

to get their children out of the public schools in New York City (despite the claims by Mayor

Michael Bloomberg that the city’s schools are better than ever) and into the charters (the mayor

also plans to double the number of charters, to help more families escape from the public schools

that he controls). If we could fire the bottom 5 to 10 percent of the lowest-performing teachers

every year, says Hoover Institution economist Eric Hanushek in the film, our national test scores

would soon approach the top of international rankings in mathematics and science.

Some fact-checking is in order, and the place to start is with the film’s quiet acknowledgment

that only one in five charter schools is able to get the ―amazing results‖ that it celebrates.

Nothing more is said about this astonishing statistic. It is drawn from a national study of charter

schools by Stanford economist Margaret Raymond (the wife of Hanushek). Known as the

CREDO study, it evaluated student progress on math tests in half the nation’s five thousand

charter schools and concluded that 17 percent were superior to a matched traditional public

school; 37 percent were worse than the public school; and the remaining 46 percent had

academic gains no different from that of a similar public school. The proportion of charters that

get amazing results is far smaller than 17 percent.Why did Davis Guggenheim pay no attention

to the charter schools that are run by incompetent leaders or corporations mainly concerned to

make money? Why propound to an unknowing public the myth that charter schools are the

answer to our educational woes, when the filmmaker knows that there are twice as many failing

charters as there are successful ones? Why not give an honest accounting?

The propagandistic nature of Waiting for “Superman” is revealed by Guggenheim’s complete

indifference to the wide variation among charter schools. There are excellent charter schools, just

as there are excellent public schools. Why did he not also inquire into the charter chains that are

mired in unsavory real estate deals, or take his camera to the charters where most students are

getting lower scores than those in the neighborhood public schools? Why did he not report on the

charter principals who have been indicted for embezzlement, or the charters that blur the line

between church and state? Why did he not look into the charter schools whose leaders are paid

$300,000–$400,000 a year to oversee small numbers of schools and students?

Guggenheim seems to believe that teachers alone can overcome the effects of student poverty,

even though there are countless studies that demonstrate the link between income and test scores.

He shows us footage of the pilot Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier, to the amazement of

people who said it couldn’t be done. Since Yeager broke the sound barrier, we should be

prepared to believe that able teachers are all it takes to overcome the disadvantages of poverty,

homelessness, joblessness, poor nutrition, absent parents, etc.

The movie asserts a central thesis in today’s school reform discussion: the idea that teachers are

the most important factor determining student achievement. But this proposition is false.

Hanushek has released studies showing that teacher quality accounts for about 7.5–10 percent of

student test score gains. Several other high-quality analyses echo this finding, and while

estimates vary a bit, there is a relative consensus: teachers statistically account for around 10–20

percent of achievement outcomes. Teachers are the most important factor within schools.

But the same body of research shows that nonschool factors matter even more than teachers.

According to University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber, about 60 percent of

achievement is explained by nonschool factors, such as family income. So while teachers are the

most important factor within schools, their effects pale in comparison with those of students’

backgrounds, families, and other factors beyond the control of schools and teachers. Teachers

can have a profound effect on students, but it would be foolish to believe that teachers alone can

undo the damage caused by poverty and its associated burdens.

Guggenheim skirts the issue of poverty by showing only families that are intact and dedicated to

helping their children succeed. One of the children he follows is raised by a doting grandmother;

two have single mothers who are relentless in seeking better education for them; two of them live

with a mother and father. Nothing is said about children whose families are not available, for

whatever reason, to support them, or about children who are homeless, or children with special

needs. Nor is there any reference to the many charter schools that enroll disproportionately small

numbers of children who are English-language learners or have disabilities.

The film never acknowledges that charter schools were created mainly at the instigation of

Albert Shanker, the president of the American Federation of Teachers from 1974 to 1997.

Shanker had the idea in 1988 that a group of public school teachers would ask their colleagues

for permission to create a small school that would focus on the neediest students, those who had

dropped out and those who were disengaged from school and likely to drop out. He sold the idea

as a way to open schools that would collaborate with public schools and help motivate

disengaged students. In 1993, Shanker turned against the charter school idea when he realized

that for-profit organizations saw it as a business opportunity and were advancing an agenda of

school privatization. Michelle Rhee gained her teaching experience in Baltimore as an employee

of Education Alternatives, Inc., one of the first of the for-profit operations.

Today, charter schools are promoted not as ways to collaborate with public schools but as

competitors that will force them to get better or go out of business. In fact, they have become the

force for privatization that Shanker feared. Because of the high-stakes testing regime created by

President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, charter schools compete

to get higher test scores than regular public schools and thus have an incentive to avoid students

who might pull down their scores. Under NCLB, low-performing schools may be closed, while

high-performing ones may get bonuses. Some charter schools ―counsel out‖ or expel students

just before state testing day. Some have high attrition rates, especially among lower-performing

students.

Perhaps the greatest distortion in this film is its misrepresentation of data about student academic

performance. The film claims that 70 percent of eighth-grade students cannot read at grade level.

This is flatly wrong. Guggenheim here relies on numbers drawn from the federally sponsored

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). I served as a member of the governing

board for the national tests for seven years, and I know how misleading Guggenheim’s figures

are. NAEP doesn’t measure performance in terms of grade-level achievement. The highest level

of performance, ―advanced,‖ is equivalent to an A+, representing the highest possible academic

performance. The next level, ―proficient,‖ is equivalent to an A or a very strong B. The next

level is ―basic,‖ which probably translates into a C grade. The film assumes that any student

below proficient is ―below grade level.‖ But it would be far more fitting to worry about students

who are ―below basic,‖ who are 25 percent of the national sample, not 70 percent.

Guggenheim didn’t bother to take a close look at the heroes of his documentary. Geoffrey

Canada is justly celebrated for the creation of the Harlem Children’s Zone, which not only runs

two charter schools but surrounds children and their families with a broad array of social and

medical services. Canada has a board of wealthy philanthropists and a very successful fund-

raising apparatus. With assets of more than $200 million, his organization has no shortage of

funds. Canada himself is currently paid $400,000 annually. For Guggenheim to praise Canada

while also claiming that public schools don’t need any more money is bizarre. Canada’s charter

schools get better results than nearby public schools serving impoverished students. If all inner-

city schools had the same resources as his, they might get the same good results.

But contrary to the myth that Guggenheim propounds about ―amazing results,‖ even Geoffrey

Canada’s schools have many students who are not proficient. On the 2010 state tests, 60 percent

of the fourth-grade students in one of his charter schools were not proficient in reading, nor were

50 percent in the other. It should be noted—and Guggenheim didn’t note it—that Canada kicked

out his entire first class of middle school students when they didn’t get good enough test scores

to satisfy his board of trustees. This sad event was documented by Paul Tough in his laudatory

account of Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone, Whatever It Takes (2009). Contrary to

Guggenheim’s mythology, even the best-funded charters, with the finest services, can’t

completely negate the effects of poverty.

Guggenheim ignored other clues that might have gotten in the way of a good story. While

blasting the teachers’ unions, he points to Finland as a nation whose educational system the US

should emulate, not bothering to explain that it has a completely unionized teaching force. His

documentary showers praise on testing and accountability, yet he does not acknowledge that

Finland seldom tests its students. Any Finnish educator will say that Finland improved its public

education system not by privatizing its schools or constantly testing its students, but by investing

in the preparation, support, and retention of excellent teachers. It achieved its present eminence

not by systematically firing 5–10 percent of its teachers, but by patiently building for the future.

Finland has a national curriculum, which is not restricted to the basic skills of reading and math,

but includes the arts, sciences, history, foreign languages, and other subjects that are essential to

a good, rounded education. Finland also strengthened its social welfare programs for children

and families. Guggenheim simply ignores the realities of the Finnish system.

In any school reform proposal, the question of ―scalability‖ always arises. Can reforms be

reproduced on a broad scale? The fact that one school produces amazing results is not in itself a

demonstration that every other school can do the same. For example, Guggenheim holds up

Locke High School in Los Angeles, part of the Green Dot charter chain, as a success story but

does not tell the whole story. With an infusion of $15 million of mostly private funding, Green

Dot produced a safer, cleaner campus, but no more than tiny improvements in its students’

abysmal test scores. According to the Los Angeles Times, the percentage of its students proficient

in English rose from 13.7 percent in 2009 to 14.9 percent in 2010, while in math the proportion

of proficient students grew from 4 percent to 6.7 percent. What can be learned from this small

progress? Becoming a charter is no guarantee that a school serving a tough neighborhood will

produce educational miracles.

Another highly praised school that is featured in the film is the SEED charter boarding school in

Washington, D.C. SEED seems to deserve all the praise that it receives from Guggenheim,

CBS’s 60 Minutes, and elsewhere. It has remarkable rates of graduation and college acceptance.

But SEED spends $35,000 per student, as compared to average current spending for public

schools of about one third that amount. Is our society prepared to open boarding schools for tens

of thousands of inner-city students and pay what it costs to copy the SEED model? Those who

claim that better education for the neediest students won’t require more money cannot use SEED

to support their argument.

Guggenheim seems to demand that public schools start firing ―bad‖ teachers so they can get the

great results that one of every five charter schools gets. But he never explains how difficult it is

to identify ―bad‖ teachers. If one looks only at test scores, teachers in affluent suburbs get higher

ones. If one uses student gains or losses as a general measure, then those who teach the neediest

children—English-language learners, troubled students, autistic students—will see the smallest

gains, and teachers will have an incentive to avoid districts and classes with large numbers of the

neediest students.

Ultimately the job of hiring teachers, evaluating them, and deciding who should stay and who

should go falls to administrators. We should be taking a close look at those who award due

process rights (the accurate term for ―tenure‖) to too many incompetent teachers. The best way to

ensure that there are no bad or ineffective teachers in our public schools is to insist that we have

principals and supervisors who are knowledgeable and experienced educators. Yet there is

currently a vogue to recruit and train principals who have little or no education experience. (The

George W. Bush Institute just announced its intention to train 50,000 new principals in the next

decade and to recruit noneducators for this sensitive post.)

Waiting for “Superman” is the most important public-relations coup that the critics of public

education have made so far. Their power is not to be underestimated. For years, right-wing

critics demanded vouchers and got nowhere. Now, many of them are watching in amazement as

their ineffectual attacks on ―government schools‖ and their advocacy of privately managed

schools with public funding have become the received wisdom among liberal elites. Despite their

uneven record, charter schools have the enthusiastic endorsement of the Obama administration,

the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Dell Foundation. In recent months, The

New York Times has published three stories about how charter schools have become the favorite

cause of hedge fund executives. According to the Times, when Andrew Cuomo wanted to tap

into Wall Street money for his gubernatorial campaign, he had to meet with the executive

director of Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a pro-charter group.

Dominated by hedge fund managers who control billions of dollars, DFER has contributed

heavily to political candidates for local and state offices who pledge to promote charter schools.

(Its efforts to unseat incumbents in three predominantly black State Senate districts in New York

City came to nothing; none of its hand-picked candidates received as much as 30 percent of the

vote in the primary elections, even with the full-throated endorsement of the city’s tabloids.)

Despite the loss of local elections and the defeat of Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty (who

had appointed the controversial schools chancellor Michelle Rhee), the combined clout of these

groups, plus the enormous power of the federal government and the uncritical support of the

major media, presents a serious challenge to the viability and future of public education.

It bears mentioning that nations with high-performing school systems—whether Korea,

Singapore, Finland, or Japan—have succeeded not by privatizing their schools or closing those

with low scores, but by strengthening the education profession. They also have less poverty than

we do. Fewer than 5 percent of children in Finland live in poverty, as compared to 20 percent in

the United States. Those who insist that poverty doesn’t matter, that only teachers matter, prefer

to ignore such contrasts.

If we are serious about improving our schools, we will take steps to improve our teacher force, as

Finland and other nations have done. That would mean better screening to select the best

candidates, higher salaries, better support and mentoring systems, and better working conditions.

Guggenheim complains that only one in 2,500 teachers loses his or her teaching certificate, but

fails to mention that 50 percent of those who enter teaching leave within five years, mostly

because of poor working conditions, lack of adequate resources, and the stress of dealing with

difficult children and disrespectful parents. Some who leave ―fire themselves‖; others were fired

before they got tenure. We should also insist that only highly experienced teachers become

principals (the ―head teacher‖ in the school), not retired businessmen and military personnel.

Every school should have a curriculum that includes a full range of studies, not just basic skills.

And if we really are intent on school improvement, we must reduce the appalling rates of child

poverty that impede success in school and in life.

There is a clash of ideas occurring in education right now between those who believe that public

education is not only a fundamental right but a vital public service, akin to the public provision

of police, fire protection, parks, and public libraries, and those who believe that the private sector

is always superior to the public sector. Waiting for “Superman” is a powerful weapon on behalf

of those championing the ―free market‖ and privatization. It raises important questions, but all of

the answers it offers require a transfer of public funds to the private sector. The stock market

crash of 2008 should suffice to remind us that the managers of the private sector do not have a

monopoly on success.

Public education is one of the cornerstones of American democracy. The public schools must

accept everyone who appears at their doors, no matter their race, language, economic status, or

disability. Like the huddled masses who arrived from Europe in years gone by, immigrants from

across the world today turn to the public schools to learn what they need to know to become part

of this society. The schools should be far better than they are now, but privatizing them is no

solution.

In the final moments of Waiting for “Superman,” the children and their parents assemble in

auditoriums in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and Silicon Valley, waiting

nervously to see if they will win the lottery. As the camera pans the room, you see tears rolling

down the cheeks of children and adults alike, all their hopes focused on a listing of numbers or

names. Many people react to the scene with their own tears, sad for the children who lose. I had a

different reaction. First, I thought to myself that the charter operators were cynically using

children as political pawns in their own campaign to promote their cause. (Gail Collins in The

New York Times had a similar reaction and wondered why they couldn’t just send the families a

letter in the mail instead of subjecting them to public rejection.) Second, I felt an immense sense

of gratitude to the much-maligned American public education system, where no one has to win a

lottery to gain admission.

Letters

'The Myth of Charter Schools' January 13, 2011

Copyright © 1963-2011 NYREV, Inc. All rights reserved.

Los Angeles Times BOOK REVIEW

'The Death and Life of the Great American School System' by Diane

Ravitch

The educational conservative decries the 'hijacking' of testing, accountability and

markets.

By Peter Schrag

The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are

Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch Basic Books: 284 pp., $26.95

Diane Ravitch, probably this nation's most respected historian of education and long one of our

most thoughtful educational conservatives, has changed her mind -- and changed it big time.

Ravitch's critical guns are still firing, but now they're aimed at the forces of testing,

accountability and educational markets, forces for which she was once a leading proponent and

strategist. As President Obama and his education secretary, Arne Duncan, embrace charter

schools and testing, picking up just where, in her opinion, the George W. Bush administration

left off, "The Death and Life of the Great American School System" may yet inspire a lot of

high-level rethinking. The book, titled to echo Jane Jacobs' 1961 demolition of grandiose urban

planning schemes, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities," has similarly dark warnings

and equally grand ambitions.

Ravitch -- the author of "Left Back" and other critiques of liberal school reforms, an assistant

secretary of education in the first Bush administration and a committed advocate of rigorous

national academic standards -- here tells the story of what she calls the "wrenching

transformation in my perspective on school reform." The educational ideas she had long been

enthusiastic about -- testing, accountability, choice and markets -- have been "hijacked," she

writes, by the privatizers, particularly the charter school movement. With their strong backing

from government and deep-pocketed foundations, she argues, charters are gradually sucking the

best students and most committed parents both from the public system and the good parochial

schools (which, in their dependency on tuition, can't compete with tax-supported charters) and

killing both. Ravitch became increasingly concerned "that accountability, now a shibboleth that

everyone applauds, had become mechanistic and even antithetical to good education." Like the

liberals she once criticized, "in this case, I too had fallen for the latest panaceas and miracle

cures."

Many of those miracle cures have been written into both the state and federal school reform laws

of the last generation, and most notably into George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind policy,

which required schools receiving a large share of federal funds to be staffed by "highly qualified"

teachers by 2006 and to bring all students -- including those with learning disabilities and

English learners -- to "proficiency" in reading and math by 2014. As many pointed out, both

were impossible goals and, since each state could set its own standards and definition of

proficiency, the policy invited states both to cheat and to dumb down standards to avoid the loss

of funds. When No Child Left Behind was first proposed, Ravitch writes, she was "excited and

optimistic." But after five years, she concluded it was a "failure" because it "ignored the

importance of knowledge. It promoted a cramped, mechanistic profoundly anti-intellectual

definition of education." Although Obama intends to revise the law (and change the name), he

plans to keep the tilt to charters, testing and the threat to close failing schools.

Ravitch is equally worried about the power of big foundations -- backed by the likes of Bill and

Melinda Gates, the Walton family, Eli and Edythe Broad -- whose multimillion-dollar grants to

school districts and charter school associations deeply influence policy, sometimes on the basis

of little more than the whims of their funders and directors. A few years ago, after spending

some $2 billion on a program to break up large high schools into smaller ones and establish new

schools able to give students more personalized attention, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

realized that small high schools couldn't provide all the opportunities and resources of larger

ones and abandoned it. "With so much money and power aligned against the neighborhood

public school and against education as a profession," Ravitch writes of deep-pocketed school

reformers, "public education itself is placed at risk."

Skeptics, most on the pedagogic left, have been complaining for years about the obsession with

bubble tests and the neglect of liberal arts disciplines that can't be reduced to simple test scores.

What is new is that Ravitch is saying these things, and saying them in terms as tough and with a

bill of particulars as persuasive as in her dissections of progressive education.

She excoriates the statistical misreading that led to the illusory achievement gains in New York

City's once-celebrated District 2 and slams what she describes as former San Diego

Superintendent Alan Bersin's morale-destroying coercion of teachers and principals to follow

liberal departures from direct instruction. Her argument -- that teachers can't successfully educate

if they're "not treated as professionals who think for themselves" -- is reinforced by the model of

Ruby Ratliff, one of her high school English teachers a half-century ago in Houston, who, in

being tough, "did nothing for our self-esteem" but would have never been able to inspire her

students' love of great literature if she'd been constantly forced to teach to a test. What Ravitch

doesn't acknowledge is that for every Mrs. Ratliff there were (and probably are) two or three

stultifying drones who cared little for great books (or math or science) and killed curiosity as

readily as the test-bound.

Ravitch has obviously learned not only from the shortcomings of testing and accountability but

also from the union members and liberals who have been saying some of the same things for

years. Still, she remains fiercely committed to high standards, including the teaching of good

behavior, but particularly to the Western cultural canon, the common vocabulary essential to all

good education and the capable, dedicated teachers who can impart it. But beware of panaceas

and magic bullets. They're as likely to kill as to cure.

Schrag, a columnist and former editorial page editor of the Sacramento Bee, is the author, most

recently, of " California: America's High Stakes Experiment."

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

Education‟s foremost historian on where NCLB went wrong,

ending the testing regime, and why we need neighborhood

schools.

Adapted from The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and

Choice Are Undermining Education, by Diane Ravitch (Basic Books, 2010).

By Diane Ravitch

On „No Child Left Behind‟

I was initially supportive of NCLB. Who could object to ensuring that children mastered the

basic skills of reading and mathematics? Who could object to an annual test of those skills?

Certainly not I.

My support for NCLB remained strong until November 30, 2006. That was the day I went to a

conference at the American Enterprise Institute, a well-respected conservative think tank in

Washington, D.C. The conference examined whether the major remedies prescribed by NCLB—

especially choice and after-school tutoring—were effective. Was the ―NCLB toolkit‖ working?

The various presentations that day demonstrated that state education departments were drowning

in new bureaucratic requirements, procedures, and routines, and that none of the prescribed

remedies was making a difference.

I started to doubt the entire approach to school reform that NCLB represented. I started to see the

danger of the culture of testing that was spreading through every school in every community,

town, city and state.

The most toxic flaw in NCLB was its legislative command that all students in every school must

be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014, including students with special needs,

students whose native language is not English, students who are homeless and lacking in any

societal advantage, and students who have every societal advantage but are not interested in their

schoolwork. All will be proficient by 2014. And if they are not, then their schools and teachers

will suffer the consequences.

The 2014 goal is a timetable for the demolition of public education in the United States. The goal

of 100 percent proficiency has placed thousands of public schools at risk of being privatized,

turned into charters, or closed. And indeed, scores of schools in New York City, Chicago,

Washington, D.C., and other districts were closed because they were unable to meet the

unreasonable demands of NCLB. Superintendents in those districts boasted of how many schools

they had closed, as if it were a badge of honor rather than an admission of defeat.

As the clock ticks toward 2014, ever larger numbers of public schools will be forced to close or

become charter schools, relinquish control to state authorities, become privately managed, or

undergo some other major restructuring. Yet, to date, there is no substantial body of evidence

that demonstrates that low-performing schools can be turned around by any of the remedies

prescribed in the law. Furthermore, [NCLB’s] simpleminded and singular focus on test scores

distorts and degrades the meaning and practice of education.

One of the unintended consequences of NCLB was the shrinkage of time available to teach

anything other than reading and math. Other subjects, including history, science, the arts,

geography, even recess, were curtailed in many schools. Reading and mathematics were the only

subjects that counted in calculating a school’s adequate yearly progress, and even in these

subjects, instruction gave way to intensive test preparation. Test scores became an obsession.

Many school districts invested heavily in test-preparation materials and activities. Test-taking

skills and strategies took precedence over knowledge. Teachers used the tests from previous

years to prepare their students, and many of the questions appeared in precisely the same format

every year; sometimes the exact same questions reappeared on the state tests. In urban schools,

where there are many low-performing students, drill and practice became a significant part of the

daily routine.

NCLB assumed that shaming schools that were unable to lift test scores every year—and the

people who work in them—would lead to higher scores. It assumed that low scores are caused by

lazy teachers and lazy principals. Perhaps most naively, it assumed that higher test scores on

standardized tests of basic skills are synonymous with good education. Its assumptions were

wrong.

On Her Favorite Teacher

My favorite teacher was Mrs. Ruby Ratliff. More than fifty years ago, she was my homeroom

teacher at San Jacinto High School in Houston, and I was lucky enough to get into her English

class as a senior.

Mrs. Ratliff was gruff and demanding. She did not tolerate foolishness or disruptions. She had a

great reputation among students. When it came time each semester to sign up for classes, there

was always a long line outside her door. What I remember most about her was what she taught

us. We studied the greatest writers of the English language, not their long writings like novels

(no time for that), but their poems and essays. I still recall a class discussion of Shelley’s

―Ozymandias,‖ and the close attention that thirty usually rowdy adolescents paid to a poem about

a time and place we could barely imagine. Now, many years later, in times of stress or sadness, I

still turn to poems that I first read in Mrs. Ratliff’s class.

She had a red pen and she used it freely. Still, she was always sure to make a comment that

encouraged us to do a better job. Clearly she had multiple goals for her students, beyond teaching

literature and grammar. She was also teaching about character and personal responsibility. These

are not the sorts of things that appear on any standardized test.

At our graduation, she made a gift of a line or two of poetry to each of the students in her

homeroom. I got these two: ―To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield,‖ the last line of

Tennyson’s ―Ulysses,‖ which we had read in class, and ―among them, but not of them,‖ from

Byron’s ―Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage,‖ which we had not read in class. As she did in class, Mrs.

Ratliff used the moment to show us how literature connected to our own lives, without

condescending into shallow ―relevance.‖ I think these were the best graduation presents I got,

because they are the only ones I remember a half century later.

I think of Mrs. Ratliff when I hear the latest proposals to improve the teaching force. I believe

Mrs. Ratliff was a great teacher, but I don’t think she would have been considered ―great‖ if she

had been judged by the kind of hard data that is used now. How would the experts have

measured what we learned? We never took a multiple-choice test. We wrote essays and took

written tests in which we had to explain our answers, not check a box or fill in a bubble. If she

had been evaluated by the grades she gave, she would have been in deep trouble, because she did

not award many A grades. An observer might have concluded that she was a very ineffective

teacher.

Would any school today recognize her ability to inspire her students to love literature? Would

she get a bonus for expecting her students to use good grammar, accurate spelling, and good

syntax? Would she win extra dollars for insisting that her students write long essays and for

grading them promptly? I don’t think so. And let’s face it: She would be stifled not only by the

data mania of her supervisors, but by the jargon, the indifference to classical literature, and the

hostility to her manner of teaching that now prevail in our schools.

On Teacher Unions

Data-driven education leaders say that academic performance lags because we don’t have

enough ―effective‖ teachers. The major obstacle to getting enough effective teachers and getting

rid of ineffective teachers, they say, is the teachers’ unions.

Critics of teacher unions seem to be more plentiful now than ever before. Supporters of choice

and vouchers see the unions as the major obstacle to their reforms. One would think, by reading

the critics, that the nation’s schools are overrun by incompetent teachers who hold their jobs only

because of union protections, that unions are directly responsible for poor student performance,

and that academic achievement would soar if the unions were to disappear.

This is unfair. No one, to my knowledge, has demonstrated a clear, indisputable correlation

between teacher unionism and academic achievement, either negative or positive. The Southern

states, where teachers’ unions have historically been either weak or nonexistent, have always had

the poorest student performance on national examinations. Massachusetts, the state with the

highest academic performance, has long had strong teacher unions. The difference in

performance is probably due to economics, not to unionization. Where there are affluent

communities, student performance tends to be higher, whether or not their teachers belong to

unions.

Critics say the union contract makes it impossible for administrators to get rid of bad teachers.

The union says it protects teachers against arbitrary dismissals. To be sure, it is not easy to fire a

tenured teacher, but it can be done so long as there is due process in hearing the teacher’s side of

the story. But the issue should not take years to resolve. When it comes to decisions about

terminating a teacher, unions want to be part of the decision-making process. It is not in the

interest of their members to have incompetent teachers in their midst, passing along poorly

educated students to the next teacher. Since unions are not going to disappear, district officials

should collaborate with them to develop a fair and expeditious process for removing incompetent

teachers, rather than using the union as a scapegoat for low performance or for conditions in the

school and society that are beyond the teachers’ control.

On “The Billionaire Boys‟ Club”

In 2002, the top two [education] philanthropies were the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and

the Walton Family Foundation; these two foundations alone were responsible for 25 percent of

all funds contributed by the top fifty donors in that year.

The new titans of the foundation world were billionaire entrepreneurs and corporate leaders.

They were soon joined in education philanthropy by another billionaire, Eli Broad, who made his

fortune in home building and the insurance industry; he launched the Eli and Edythe Broad

Foundation in 1999. Unlike the older established foundations, such as Ford, Rockefeller, and

Carnegie, which reviewed proposals submitted to them, the new foundations decided what they

wanted to accomplish, how they wanted to accomplish it, and which organizations were

appropriate recipients of their largesse.

Gates, Walton, and Broad came to be called venture philanthropies, organizations that made

targeted investments in education reform.

[They] began with different emphases, but over time they converged in support of reform

strategies that mirrored their own experience in acquiring huge fortunes, such as competition,

choice, deregulation, incentives, and other market-based approaches. These were not familiar

concepts in the world of education, where high value is placed on collaboration. The venture

philanthropies used their funds assertively to promote their goals. Not many school districts

could resist their offers. School districts seldom have much discretionary money. The money

expended by a foundation—even one that spends $100 million annually—may seem small in

comparison to the hundreds of millions or billions spent by public school districts. But the offer

of a multimillion-dollar grant by a foundation is enough to cause most superintendents and

school boards to drop everything and reorder their priorities.

And so it happened that the Gates, Walton, and Broad foundations came to exercise vast

influence over American education. These foundations set the policy agenda not only for school

districts, but also for states and even the U.S. Department of Education.

There is something fundamentally antidemocratic about relinquishing control of the public

education policy agenda to private foundations run by society’s wealthiest people. These

foundations, no matter how worthy and high-minded, are not subject to public oversight or

review, as a public agency would be. They have taken it upon themselves to reform public

education, perhaps in ways that would never survive the scrutiny of voters in any district or state.

If voters don’t like the foundations’ reform agenda, they can’t vote them out of office. The

foundations demand that public schools and teachers be held accountable for performance, but

they themselves are accountable to no one. If their plans fail, no sanctions are levied against

them.

The foundations justify their assertive agenda by pointing to the persistently low performance of

public schools in urban districts. Having seen so little progress over recent years, they now seem

determined to privatize public education to the greatest extent possible. They are allocating

millions of dollars to increase the number of charter schools. They assume that if children are

attending privately managed schools, and if teachers and principals are recruited from

nontraditional backgrounds, then student achievement will improve dramatically. They base this

conclusion on the success of a handful of high-visibility charter schools (including KIPP,

Achievement First, and Uncommon Schools) that in 2009 accounted for about 300 of the

nation’s approximately 4,600 charter schools.

If we continue on the present course, with big foundations and the federal government investing

heavily in opening more charter schools, the result is predictable. Charter schools in urban

centers will enroll the motivated children of the poor, while the regular public schools will

become schools of last resort for those who never applied or were rejected. The regular public

schools will enroll a disproportionate share of students with learning disabilities and students

who are classified as English-language learners; they will enroll the kids from the most troubled

home circumstances, the ones with the worst attendance records and the lowest grades and test

scores.

Do we need neighborhood public schools? I believe we do. The neighborhood school is the place

where parents meet to share concerns about their children and the place where they learn the

practice of democracy. They create a sense of community among strangers. As we lose

neighborhood public schools, we lose the one local institution where people congregate and

mobilize to solve local problems, where individuals learn to speak up and debate and engage in

democratic give-and-take with their neighbors.

The market is not the best way to deliver public services. Just as every neighborhood should

have a reliable fire station, every neighborhood should have a good public school. Privatizing our

public schools makes as much sense as privatizing the fire department or the police department.

American education has a long history of infatuation with fads and ill-considered ideas. The

current obsession with making our schools work like a business may be the worst of them, for it

threatens to destroy public education. Who will stand up to the tycoons and politicians and tell

them so?

On How to Improve Our Schools

What can we do to improve schools and education? Plenty.

We must first of all have a vision of what good education is. We should have goals that are worth

striving for. Everyone involved in educating children should ask themselves why we educate.

What is a well-educated person? What knowledge is of most worth? What do we hope for when

we send our children to school? What do we want them to learn and accomplish by the time they

graduate from school?

Certainly we want them to be able to read and write and be numerate. But that is not enough. We

want to prepare them for a useful life. We want them to be able to think for themselves when

they are out in the world on their own. We want them to have good character and to make sound

decisions about their life, their work, and their health. We want them to face life’s joys and

travails with courage and humor. We hope that they will be kind and compassionate in their

dealings with others. We want them to have a sense of justice and fairness. We want them to

understand our nation and our world and the challenges we face. We want them to be active,

responsible citizens, prepared to think issues through carefully, to listen to differing views, and

to reach decisions rationally. We want them to learn science and mathematics so they understand

the problems of modern life and participate in finding solutions. We want them to enjoy the rich

artistic and cultural heritage of our society and other societies.

If these are our goals, the current narrow, utilitarian focus of our national testing regime is not

sufficient to reach any of them. Indeed, to the extent that we make the testing regime our master,

we may see our true goals recede farther and farther into the distance. By our current methods,

we may be training (not educating) a generation of children who are repelled by learning,

thinking that it means only drudgery, worksheets, test preparation, and test-taking.

Our nation’s commitment to provide universal, free public education has been a crucial element

in the successful assimilation of millions of immigrants and in the ability of generations of

Americans to improve their lives. As we seek to reform our schools, we must take care to do no

harm. In fact, we must take care to make our public schools once again the pride of our nation.

To the extent that we strengthen them, we strengthen our democracy.

Diane Ravitch received the NEA Friend of Education Award at the 2010 NEA Representative

Assembly in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Stop Trashing Teachers!

by Diane Ravitch

September 29, 2010 The Daily Beast

Obama‟s misguided policies and the overhyped doc Waiting For "Superman" have turned America

against its teachers. Education expert Diane Ravitch on why the vitriol is so dangerous.

For the past week, the national media has launched an attack on American public education that

is unprecedented in our history. NBC devoted countless hours to panels stacked with "experts"

who believe that public education is horrible because it has so many "bad" teachers and "bad"

principals. The same "experts" appeared again and again to call for privatization, breaking

teachers' unions, and mass firings of "bad" educators. Oprah devoted two shows to the same

voices. The movie Waiting for "Superman", possibly the most ballyhooed documentary of all

time, explains patiently that poor test scores are caused by bad teachers, that bad teachers are

protected for life by their unions, and that the answer to our terrible test scores is privatization. If

only we fire enough teachers every year, goes the oft-repeated claim, our national test scores will

soar to meet those of Finland, the highest scoring nation.

This narrative began with George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation in 2002, which

mandated that 100 percent of all children would be proficient by 2014. Leaving aside the fact

that no nation or state has ever achieved 100 percent proficiency, this law unleashed a frenzy of

testing in American public schools. The results are meager, as judged by the highly respected

federal tests.

Instead of changing direction, Barack Obama has tightened the screws on Bush's policies. Now,

testing is more important than ever. Obama and his Secretary of Education Arne Duncan are

pressing states to adopt merit pay, so that teachers will get bonuses if student scores go up, and

pressing them to evaluate teachers by student test scores. Testing is the key element in this

approach. Woe to the teacher who cannot raise test scores on standardized tests that demand only

the skill of selecting the right bubble of four possible bubbles.

Arne Duncan's Race to the Top program handed out almost $5 billion to promote these ideas.

States leapt to be eligible for the money, promising to open more privately managed charter

schools, to fire the principal of every low-performing school, to fire most or all of the teachers in

schools with low scores, and to close public schools if their scores are low.

None of these approaches works.

Privately managed charter schools do not get better results on average than regular public

schools. Some are excellent, some are awful, but most are no better than their public

counterparts. Even the Superman movie admitted that only one in five (actually, only 17 percent)

of charters get great test scores. Twice as many charters (37 percent) are even worse than the

neighborhood public school.

The claim that "tenure" is a guarantee of lifetime employment is a canard. Professors in higher

education get lifetime tenure, but teachers in K-12 schools do not have lifetime employment:

they have the right to due process if the principal wants to fire them. Teachers get due process

rights only after a principal agrees that they have earned it. The reason for due-process rights is

that teachers have been fired because of their race, their religion, their sexual orientation, or

because a supervisor didn't like them. Teachers with due process can be fired, but only after a

hearing by an impartial hearing officer.

Twice as many charters (37 percent) are even worse than the neighborhood public school.

The claim that merit pay will improve student performance has been disproven again and again.

Whenever businessmen decide to "reform" education, they insist on merit pay. But it doesn't

work. The latest study, released only a week ago by the National Center on Performance

Incentives, was the most rigorous evaluation of merit pay ever conducted. One group of teachers

in Nashville was offered bonuses up to $15,000 if they raised students' math scores; another, the

control group, was offered nothing. The average teacher pay is about $50,000, so this was a

significant incentive to get higher scores. Over the three years of the study, both groups produced

the same results. The economists, who were scrupulously nonpartisan, concluded that

performance pay had no effect on student performance. It turns out that teachers were working as

hard as they knew how, with or without the bonus.

The claim that teachers can be accurately evaluated by student test scores has been refuted again

and again by scholars. The Economic Policy Institute released a statement by many of the

nation's leading testing experts warning that this method was riddled with error and instability. A

study released days ago by Sean Corcoran of New York University showed that a teacher who

was ranked at the 43rd percentile, using student test scores, might actually be at the 15th

percentile or the 71st percentile because the margin of error in this methodology is so large.

Tests that assess what students have learned are not intended to be, nor are they, measures of

teacher quality. It is easier for teachers to get higher test scores if they teach advantaged students.

If they teach children who are poor or children who are English language learners, or homeless

children, or children with disabilities, they will not get big score gains. So, the result of this

approach—judging teachers by the score gains of their students—will incentivize teachers to

avoid students with the greatest needs. This is just plain stupid as a matter of policy.

This past summer, the Los Angeles Times published a database in which they rated 6,000

elementary teachers as effective or ineffective, using what is called "value-added methodology,"

that is, whether their students' scores went up. Their decision to do this was denounced by testing

experts and applauded by Secretary Duncan. Testing experts tried to explain why this method is

likely to mislabel teachers and why it is so error-prone that it must be used—if at all—with

extreme caution. One teacher who was rated "less effective" than his peers was Rigoberto

Ruelas. A few days ago, Mr. Ruelas committed suicide. Many educators blamed the Los Angeles

Times for his death, but it is impossible to know what his state of mind was. The Times reported

his death and noted that he taught in a neighborhood that was one of the city's most impoverished

and gang-ridden, and that he had a nearly perfect attendance record. Former students of Mr.

Ruelas' wrote on websites to express their admiration for him, to explain how he reached out to

the most difficult students, how he was so kind and gentle in a tough, tough neighborhood, how

he was the best teacher they ever had.

None of the current remedies now embraced by the Obama administration, the Gates Foundation,

the Broad Foundation, the GOP, Davis Guggenheim, or other so-called reformers will improve

education. Making war on teachers and principals is ridiculous, outrageous. None of the people

at the foundations or in the policymaking circles work as hard as the average teacher, face as

many challenges every day, for as little pay. None of the pundits who blithely denounce teachers

would work 20 years with the hope of getting a salary (today) of $52,000.

No nation in the world—certainly not Finland—has improved its education system by belittling

and firing teachers and principals.

People who know nothing about education and whose ideas have no basis in research or practice

are calling the shots. Left to their own devices, they will destroy public education. They have

already demoralized our nation's teachers. Eventually, their bad ideas will fail, because they are

wrong.

Diane Ravitch is a historian of education and author of The Death and Life of the Great

American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (Basic Books,

2010).

URL: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-29/education-crisis-why-testing-

and-firing-teachers-doesnt-work/p/