Andrea Gabor is the Michael Bloomberg Professor of business journalism at Baruch College of the City University of New York. She is also a deeply knowledgeable scholar of corporate education reform. She debunked the alleged “New Orleans miracle” in the New York Times.
In this post, she expresses her concern about the fawning praise for Eva Moskowitz’s charter schools and explains why Eva’s charter schools are not a model for public education.
She writes:
It is we—that is American citizens—who should be terrified because Success Academy is entirely in-sync with the Trump era. It is unapologetically anti-democratic, anti-union, segregated and relentlessly test-driven. And, it should be noted, the CMO has not yet graduated a single high school student.
At a time when we are facing an existential threat to our democracy—one enabled by a decades-long obsession with standardized tests that narrowed curriculum and helped kill off civics education—the championing of Success Academy by writer as influential as Elizabeth Green, she is the founding editor of ChalkBeat and author of Building a Better Teacher, is worrying indeed.
Let’s be clear. Judging by its roster of 46 schools, there are potentially thousands of families who are happy with the education Success Academy provides, and many more who might have been if they had won the network’s lottery—though parents have complained of the CMO’s harsh, and even abusive, ‘boot-camp-like” culture—see here and here. Indeed, hundreds, if not thousands of children have been pulled out by their families (or forced out) because of the network’s strict demands for behavioral compliance and its single-focused pursuit of high test scores…
But Green fails to address key questions about the kind of education Success kids get—and at what cost. She certainly doesn’t question whether the ever-changing, bubble-in test-scores are the best—or even a good–measure of learning. While she acknowledges giving up on democratic control of schools and districts, she never considers the historic, foundational role of public education in a democracy—and the civic cost of autocratic education systems. Nor does Green consider the successful public-school networks amid what she, rightly, describes as the crushing bureaucracy that has often stifled New York City schools—even though she has published stories about them!
Green also glosses over—and, in some cases, omits entirely—the considerable problems with the Success Academy model, including widespread creaming and credible allegations of abusive behavior toward children. Although Green’s own book points out that the best teachers have years of experience, she says not one word about Success Academy’s high teacher attrition rate. Some Success Academy schools lose over half of their teachers each year; few last more than three years.
Gabor writes that there are excellent models within public education of success, and she refers specifically to the New York Performance Standards Consortium, which has used a progressive model of education with great results.
Gabor despairs of those who think that democracy is the problem, and charter schools are the answer. To give up on democracy is to fall into the snare of the Trump agenda. Let the authoritarian leader solve all problems.
Why anyone believes that a strict authoritarian school is just right for all or most American children is a puzzle. It may be right for some, but it is not a model for public education.

Success Academy’s model is not replicable for public education. I taught in a diverse suburban school district with a very active NAACP. They were very engaged and had access to all of our records. Our suspension records were subject to public scrutiny, and these records disaggregated the data by race. We would have been rebuked if we had such high suspension numbers of minority students. Heads would have rolled, and principals would have been fired. The no-excuses approach to discipline would have resulted in the school district waging war with the NAACP.
The Success curriculum with an emphasis on testing taking skills are nothing to emulate. Standardized tests narrow the curriculum, and all students deserve a rich varied curriculum with exposure to the humanities, social sciences and the arts. Students also deserve real legitimate teachers, not pretenders that are passing through in order to reduce the size of their students loans.
We hear about the wonders of Success Academy because Moskowitz is a political operator who how to get access to wealthy donors. She is a skilled at public relations. She knows how to pay herself well with the profits from her schools. However, it is unethical to profitize the education of poor students, and public schools have limits on the amount of compensation an administrator may receive. Public education should not be a business; it should be a public service.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We hear about the wonders of Success Academy because [of] Moskowitz” is such a TELLING statement: for all these years we (the public) have heard about how great charters/choice are and that they are a necessary solution to fixing “broken” schools not because they are great or because our school system is actually broken, but because they spend massive money to TELL everyone this is true. Where have public school advocates been in this game?
LikeLike
I read the piece that declared Success Charters “the winner” in schools and I have to say I think it’s nuts to pretend that NYC is somehow a model of the US.
It’s a huge city with astronomical land values and an almost endless supply of teachers and wealthy donors. It has VAST income inequality – from the poorest to the very richest, public transportation and it’s geographically compact in terms of population per mile.
You know what would happen here if a Success Charter opened? The better-off parents would immediately decamp from the public schools to this quasi-private school and the 90% remaining in the public system (and those who washed out of Eva’s boot camp) would be left with a poorer school system with all the “lower performing” students.
They could end up with a shangri la of “choice” with privatization- COULD- they could also end up with a gutted, unfashionable and politically powerless public system and then a system of high performing charters that start with 180 1st graders and end up graduating 19.
My local public school can’t do that. We can’t shed 90% of the lower-scoring or poorly behaved students from 1st grade to 12th grade. They don’t have anywhere else to go. That’s not an option for us. There are parents who would like if we did that, but they don’t run the show.
LikeLike
Chiara,
What you describe in this comment is happening in urban districts across the nation. Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Kansas City…and many more. The charters pick the students they want, exclude those they don’t want. The public schools get the most difficult and expensive students, and have less money to care for them.
LikeLike
I keep running up against the belief of ed reformers that the wealthiest people in this country will design an equitable public system, and that I have to trust them to do that.
I don’t believe that. I haven’t seen the wealthiest people in this country design anything equitable my whole adult life. In fact, everything they do seems to exacerbate income inequality and harm working and middle class people. Maybe they’ve had an astonishing and sudden change of heart in this one area- education- but I’m not persuaded.
The same people who blew up the economy in 2009 without a care in the world are now completely committed to equity and can be trusted to run public education? The same people who just bought enough politicians to give themselves massive tax breaks at the expense of the rest of us should be designing public systems for working and middle class people? Not buying that. Nope.
LikeLike
Context matters: I don’t think Gabor or you, Diane, really have a clear sense of just how awful the behavior problems at many urban schools are. I’m not surprised that you don’t because there’s a code of silence among teachers and administrators about it. But it’s really bad. In that context, we must look at the discipline at Success differently. I’m not at all sure that it needs to be that strict, but if you could be a fly on the wall in the other schools, your views would shift. Teachers are being abused –badly. We need to speak up for them, and end the stigma and shame around speaking out.
LikeLike
Many students from poor urban school districts come from dysfunctional homes and are troubled. Yet these are the very students that get shortchanged because there is less money available for them. Some classes in city school districts have thirty-five or more students in them, and they may not even have enough books for all the students. In the surrounding suburbs classes are much smaller, and the students have fewer emotional problems. I know several teachers that left NYC for a job in the suburbs including one that broke her arm after being pushed down the steps by an angry parent. These needy students should be in smaller classes with more resources and support available to them. However, they get less, and then the media and politicians blame the teachers for “failing” them when it’s the inequity in system that is failing.
LikeLike
Eva Moskowitz has lobbied AGAINST small class sizes for urban schools. After all, if she can turn her students into scholars with large class sizes, why shouldn’t everyone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cost-of-small-class-size/2011/03/03/AFPGSkkB_story.html?utm_term=.dcf11ed1dd39
LikeLike
ponderosa,
When you say “context matters”, is THIS what you mean?
That a school filled with the most motivated at-risk parents who have signed on to do everything that is asked of them, 19% of the children in Kindergarten and 1st grade are acting out so violently that they need to be suspended — some of them multiple times.
Eva Moskowitz is NOT interested in a discussion about how to deal with the behavioral problems of kids — especially older ones — in urban schools.
She is interested in proving that you are a lousy teacher because you aren’t getting 99% passing rates with the students you have failed to teach.
LikeLike
Ponderosa, my partner worked in the NYC public high schools for more than 30 years. The last seven, she was principal of a small high school. Every day, she brought home tales of discipline issues. She learned and heard every four letter word. She took away knives. She referred to students who towered over her as “children,” not “scholars. They seemed to feel protected. She is a strong disciplinarian, but she used suspension judiciously. She didn’t require students to walk in a straight line. She maintained a good climate. It can be done.
LikeLike
Diane, that’s interesting to hear. You say the teens “seemed to feel protected”. I’m not sure what you mean here. Protected from what? From each other? From the world outside?
One truth I’d like to see injected into discussions about student conduct is acknowledgement of mob psychology. A classroom contains a large group of intelligent young humans that are often quite aware of their ability to work like a mob. Once that dynamic takes hold, the power lies largely in their hands, and erstwhile decent individuals become party to an indecent group. It seems to me that many lay people fail to see this. Lay people think the teacher is the one who holds the power. The kids, because they can form a mob, often hold more power. This power is not always used humanely. The victim is often the teacher. The abuse happens behind closed doors, and the victim is often ashamed to go public with what has happened. The kids leave school laughing and playing; the teacher leaves school internally shredded. This has nothing to do with race. The mob can be white, while the teacher-victim is black, or vice-versa. At my school a young female Hispanic teacher is daily savaged by a mostly-white class. This is not about the ravages of historical racism manifesting in the behavior of 21st Century teens. This is about something groups of teens are prone to do when they decide to act as a group, when they feel their power, and when they find a victim. With this in mind, I often feel profound cognitive dissonance when I hear people talking about teens as if they’re delicate creatures thirsting for knowledge but sadly impeded by the callous, racist, punitive and/or lazy teachers in their midst.
LikeLike
Children feel protected when they know the adults are in charge and stronger than they are. The strength is not physical. It is moral authority.
There was a scene in the Great TV series “The Wire.” The Police Chief is talking to a gym full of high school kids. They are wild, out of control. He can’t quiet them. The principal walks in, a woman smaller than the police chief. The room falls silent. That’s moral authority.
LikeLike
And even if one doesn’t care about the abused teachers, realize that zero education is occurring in many of these classrooms. How is that good for the kids?
LikeLike
What you don’t realize is that Eva Moskowitz’ results are being used to PREVENT such a discussion from being had.
If we didn’t have dishonest actors exaggerating the violence of 5 year olds (but only the non-white ones), there could be a good discussion that didn’t start with the premise that huge cohorts of non-white 5 year olds with the most motivated and dedicated parents are naturally more violent than middle class white children. 15 times more violent.
LikeLike
Anyone that figures out a way to terminate over half of the original students should not be judged on the “success” of the survivors. The school should have to be judged on the total number of students including those that left the school. Then, we would hardly call this “success.”
LikeLike
Dear Ponderosa, I’ve actually been in those classrooms and know just what you mean. But I’ve also been in (small) schools where the faculty and principal have pulled together and via some trial-and-error developed a combination of incentives, discipline policies and restorative justice practices that actually help maintain order in those schools WITHOUT harsh discipline and sky-high suspension rates. Learning in those schools does happen because the kids feel safe and supported. I’m not saying its easy, but its possible. It takes care and collaboration.
LikeLike
I’m pleased to know that you’ve been in those anarchic classrooms. And I believe you when you say you’ve found schools that steer a reasonably successful middle course between the Success model and anarchy (as Diane’s partner seemed able to do). But I don’t share your or Diane’s squeamishness about discipline. People these days seem unable to draw a distinction between discipline and abuse. There’s a reason punishment has been around for so long: it’s efficient. It’s bad when it’s applied unjustly; it’s divine when it’s applied justly and for the common good. I am not dead set against the restorative justice model and its hippie-therapeutic ilk but my gut tells me it’s a black hole of time and energy, that the chronic misbehavers will mock and despise it, while the extensive talks and meetings will exact a devastating opportunity cost on our teaching and other duties. We’d become a full-time talk-therapy factory or junior justice system instead of an academic institution. A day or two in a strict and boring on-campus suspension room would probably have better results with far less cost. I suspect we could prevent a lot of behavior problems at the high school level by better habituating kids in K-3 to good classroom behavior AND by giving them more solid academic preparation in the elementary grades so that they’re less likely to be disaffected in the higher grades.
LikeLike
Eva takes it to an extreme.
LikeLike
And then there’s this from Heartland Institute about Science. OMG.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/42855-here-s-the-teacher-friendly-antidote-to-heartland-institute-s-anti-science-school-propaganda
Sickening.
LikeLike
comment did not get posted
LikeLike
Second try did not work.
LikeLike
Laura,
None of your comments are in moderation. Please post again.
LikeLike