Earlier this week, I was interviewed on NPR’s “On Point.” In the second part of the hour, the show brought on some young woman whose name I can’t remember. They said she used to work for Michelle Rhee and that she worked (or used to work) for Rhee’s TNTP (the New Teacher Project). I recall that her big complaint was that I failed to find common ground with corporate reformers. She said she had interviewed 50 leading thinkers inside the Beltway, and they think there is too much testing. She seemed to believe this was far more decisive than, say, the injurious effects of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, or even the copious graphs in the appendix of my new book, which show that test scores and graduation rates in the U.S. are at a historic high point and the dropout rate is at a historic low point.

She then published a piece on Huffington Post, again making her case for “the middle of the road,” which is where she thinks “reformers” like Michelle Rhee are to be found.

Arthur Goldstein responded to her post with this hilarious and biting analysis. He begins by quoting my fellow Texan Jim Hightower, who famously said that “yellow stripes and dead armadillos are the only things you’ll find in the middle of the road.”

The author of the post (sorry but her name eludes me) on Huffington describes me, apparently, as “simplistic.” Goldstein disagrees.

Goldstein responds:

So let’s understand this. The corporate reformers oppose vouchers, but won’t say they do. The important thing is to move the kids from so-called failing schools. Whether or not they address the underlying issues that cause low test scores, like poverty, learning disabilities, or lack of English, is of no consequence. Note also that Levin says nothing whatsoever to suggest these “moderates” oppose privatization or for-profit schools in any way whatsoever. Yet she has the audacity to refer to Ravitch as “simplistic.” Simplistic is a word I’d use for anyone uncritically viewing Levin’s piece.Levin further contends that reformy folk does not overemphasize testing. I’m not sure which astral plane Ms. Levin resides in, but in this one high-stakes tests determine whether or not schools stay open, and whether or not teachers remain employed. Levin praises Race to the Top, which enables this. She seems blissfully unaware there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there is any validity whatsoever to value-added ratings. Even as Teach for America inductees actively steal the jobs of laid-off Chicago teachers, Levin musters the audacity to suggest that it does not endorse any radical agenda, and implies that Ravitch is delusional to suggest anything of the sort.  Doubtless if scab labor took Levin’s job, or jobs or her friends and family, she’d beam with approval.

What really amazes me about this column is the complete and utter ignorance of the role of unions. Levin characterizes them as obstructionist, but I’ve watched as my union embraced mayoral control, and then supported it again after it was fairly well-established as an anti-democratic disaster. UFT had a hand in writing the state evaluation law and boasted that “objective” measures only made up 40% of a teacher rating. They must have forgotten that any teacher failing that 40% must be rated ineffective overall. UFT supported charters, and even co-located to start one. UFT supported a failed merit pay program. Of course, that’s not all that unique, since all such programs have failed. And UFT supports Common Core, which adds yet another layer of testing to the tangled web that appears to have eluded Ms. Levin.

If this is the best they can muster against Diane Ravitch, they’d better hope that absolutely no one reads her new book.