Arthur Camins, Director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ., points put that drug makers are not allowed to make unsubstantiated claims. They are required to gather evidence and to disclose possible negative side effects. They can make boasts, offer up dubious facts, and get away with it. They speak about the individuals’ “right to choose” without acknowledging the harm to the community’s public institutions.
In a thoughtful article, Camins says that the debate about school reform has been obscured by “the fog of war,” a public relations blitz that appeals to individualism and self-interest, replacing evidence and any sense of the common good.
He writes:
“One weapon in the arsenal of opponents of current policies has been to point out the absence of evidentiary support. In fact, there is no system inside the U.S. or around the world that has made substantial systemic progress through charter schools, merit pay or test-driven accountability. Resistance is growing, but so far this line of attack has not built enough widespread public understanding to deter policy makers. Maybe that is because the supporters of these policies have effectively obscured their real goals and values.”
He concludes::
“Stories of dysfunctional, conflict-plagued, private agenda-driven local school boards abound. There are countless examples school boards making uniformed decisions that do not serve the interests of children. However, privatization and shrinking of public participation in decision-making is not an antidote to ineffective, uninformed democracy. Public knowledge and clear-eyed evidence are. History is replete with evidence that the side effect of disenfranchisement in the name of improvement is benefits to the few and disaster for the many. Arguments that restricting democracy will benefit everyone have always been the coins of autocrats and self-appointed experts driven by blind faith or ideology and narrow self-interest.
“The drive to privatize educational governance, especially with respect to expansion of charter schools, has two unstated goals. One is to open up the vast education market to individuals looking for a new profitable place to invest their capital. Another is more cynical. Some people have given up hope for systemic improvement. Instead, they are willing to settle for a system that only provides an opportunity for those they deem to be the deserving and capable few among the unfortunate many. Hence, the negative disruptive side effects of school closings in poor communities are the price that the many will pay to save the lucky few.
“Let’s report the evidence and side effects so the public can decide: Which side are you on? Are you willing to give up your right to democratic participation and risk the future of your child or your neighbor’s to privilege the lucky few? Are you ready to give up on the common good?
“For the sake of clarity, I’ve attempted to present complex issues in binary terms. Assuredly, there are gradations. In reality, ensuring the wellbeing of individuals is inseparable from advancing the common good. The old labor slogan, an injury to one is an injury to all, said it simply, but well. Put another way, my personal gain is diminished or even negated when it comes at the expense of another.
“We need an educational system based on these values. I think, when asked, the public may agree.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I have the feeling Arthur Camins doesn’t watch a lot of TV.
I have a feeling he hasn’t read George Lakoff, either. The reasons that the “reformers” are still winning the “marketing war for the soul of American education” can be found in his article. He uses a fairly bland mode of discourse in skating around the key issues. He talks about values but never touches on the emotional core of the matter.
My understanding of the “reformers” and their agenda is that what they are doing is downright un-American and anti-democratic. You don’t win an argument with them by saying things like this:
“Defenders of current education policies would have us believe that opponents are either right wing extremists who just hate anything that President Obama wants (There is substantial truth to this claim) or union-driven defenders of adult privilege in a terrible status quo.”
As far as I can tell, some of the “right-wing extremists” really are making substantive arguments that go to the heart of foundational American principles such as federalism and participatory democracy (i.e., local control). Fretting about how the nasty old opposition is characterizing us is the last thing we need to do. WE have to do the framing. Instead, we tend to let the “reformers” do it, and they’ve done it well. That’s why people who try to meet their outrageous claims halfway and engage them on their terms (read AFT and NEA leadership) are doing teachers and their students an awful disservice.
Diane’s book, Reign of Error, has already done a brilliantly incisive job of shredding their claims. The book has had a profound rallying effect on teachers and other interested observers, and yet the mainstream media continue to buy the PISA story, the Waiting for Superman story, the Arne Duncan story, the Michelle Rhee story, Smartest Kids in the World story, ad nauseam.
Again, read Lakoff. It’s the metaphors and the emotion-laden true stories that convey fundamental American values that will carry the day, not the statistical evidence. The Camins article is a valiant effort, but to me it still sort of nibbles drily around the edges.
If evidence is to make any difference, it has to be embedded within profoundly moving stories about real kids and real teachers who are suffering from budget cuts and Soviet style top-down initiatives. And we need to hear heroic tales of students and teachers who are building alternatives to the reductive and foolish test-and-punish approach to education.
Simply laying out the evidence against the “reformers” and their pet policies is not going to work. There are so many biases built into the worldview of the typical reformer that no matter how clear or compelling that evidence may be, it won’t make a dent in their understanding or their ability to write their cockeyed story of reform.
One reason the reformers maintain their biases is that very few of them have ever taught school. Those that actually have didn’t do it long enough to get really good at it. They literally don’t know what they’re talking about.
Meanwhile, with big money behind them, the “reform” interests are able to pay for professional storytelling (the best marketing approach there is) that insinuates their twisted beliefs into the minds of the public. This is why the stories of actual teachers, parents, and students need to be heard. And this is one of the reasons that Diane’s blog is a great opportunity for regular people to make a difference.
“Which is a better public investment, the chance that charter schools might confer benefits on some children or working to improve all schools?”
While Arthur Camins’ article is outstanding, I am struck by the awful and very sad realization that this question even needs to be asked.
I think there is a good argument to be made that parents have a stronger voice in the education of their student when their student goes to a charter school like the Community Roots Charter than they would when their student is one of the 1,100,000 students in the NYC public school district.
You can’t make the case, because most charter boards have no parents and are not even elected by the parents. At least in regular school boards, one can vote.
If I may borrow from Gold Hat in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre:
Evidence? We ain’t got no evidence. We don’t need no evidence! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ evidence!
“Resistance is growing, but so far this line of attack has not built enough widespread public understanding to deter policy makers.” The bigger question for me is why? Why does major media not see the obvious facts? If there is not yet widespread understanding, could that be attributed at least in part to the editorial boards of major media such as the NY Times?
Major media is paid to write the pretend upside of ed reform; or is owned by the very reformers who put out the spin.