A couple of weeks ago, I invited Stephen Dyer of Innovation Ohio to write a post explaining the Cleveland Plan.
I thought the post was fair, balanced, and informative.
Terry Ryan of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, based jointly in Dayton and Washington, D.C., responded to Dyer and criticized me for printing the post.
When I visited Cleveland earlier this year to address the Cleveland City Club, what stuck me was that it is a sad, sad city. Except for sports stadiums, it feels abandoned. The downtown is small and has many empty commercial buildings. Neighborhoods have boarded up buildings and empty lots where buildings used to be. I was struck by how impoverished the city is, how disheartened the teachers are, and how inadequate is the response of state and city leaders to the collapse of this once-proud city.
According to NAEP, the district consists of 100% poor children.
About the time I was in Cleveland, the Cleveland Plan was announced, and all I heard about was merit pay and charters. I haven’t seen any evidence that this is a winning strategy for a deeply impoverished city. Charters in Ohio don’t get better results than regular public schools; many are in academic emergency or academic watch. I wanted to understand more, which is why I asked Dyer to explain the Cleveland Plan. The plan has been warmly embraced by Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson (D) and Governor John Kasich (R).
Just a bit of background. I was a founding director of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. I left the board in 2009. One of the reasons that I became disillusioned with charter schools was that I saw several of the charters in Ohio sponsored by TBF flounder and fail. My experience at TBF pushed me away from the nostrums that are now so popular on the right and with some Democrats, such as Arne Duncan. I came to see charters as part of a wider effort to privatize public education.
Two things I want to add:
First, I know Terry Ryan and always found him to be fair-minded, so I was disappointed that he took issue with my invitation to Stephen Dyer to write on an issue about which he is deeply knowledgeable. I previously asked Terry’s colleague Mike Petrilli to write a blog to explain why some conservatives support the Common Core standards (he was too busy). I don’t clear my decisions with anyone. I was also surprised that Terry thinks I am less committed to local democracy when I question charters, which transfer public funds to private corporations and replace public control of public education. It is because I believe in democracy that I am disturbed by the rapid growth of charters, which erode the democratically-controlled public sector. The growth of charters is the leading edge of a free market in education, and Terry knows it.
Second, unlike Dyer, I am unalterably opposed to for-profit schools. I think they are an abomination, and moreso in Ohio than in most places, where the for-profit sector is unusually rapacious and greedy and uses its profits to expand and generate more profits, not good schools.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I agree with you completely.
Sent from my MOTOROLA ATRIX™ HD on AT&T
I have come to hate when privatizers say poverty is an excuse. It trivializes the plight of the children who live in poor areas. It blames teachers when they are not miracle workers. Here is a long report on the problems of Baltimore, which are common to other cities, Detroit, Chicago, Flint, etc.
http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/a_special_place_in_hell.php
As the first and longest-suffering victims of neoliberal economics – characterized by the offshoring/outsourcing of jobs, financialization and privatization – it’s no surprise that de-industrialized Great Lakes cities like Cleveland and Detroit are now the targets of an aggressive hostile takeover of the public schools. After all, what’s left to feed off of, but the schools and public resources?
Unwilling to produce wealth through domestic production, or the research and development (declining, and also being offshored) that would modernize it, unwilling to pay wages that can support middle class living standards, local and national elites increasingly extract wealth from the public sector and the nation’s patrimony, all enabled by a captive state.
What you saw in Cleveland is the future of American cities, and increasingly the suburbs, with the exception of the “lucky” few that are still connected to the circuitry of global finance and trade. Even in those “bubble” cities such as New York, income polarization is worsening, and the only response is to intensify policing and incarceration.
Interesting, and frightening, that the US has become the world’s number one jailer – of course, in many places prisons are now also a privatized profit center – during precisely the same time that its public schools are being destabilized, fragmented and turned over to private, profit-seeking interests.
Now, let’s sit back and wait for the TFA/KIPP spinmeisters, apologists and trolls (fronting for their their financial backers) to respond and say that what you saw in Cleveland is the fault of unionized teachers.
You can add St. Louis and Kansas City to your list.
And, yes, the GERM front blames the teachers’ unions in Detroit ad Cleveland for the dire state of the schools, which in fact reflect the abandonment of the city and decimation of its industrial base.
From Ryan’s article:
“. . . comprehensive and bold package of reforms. These include plans to:
1.Attract, retain, and develop excellent teachers.
2.Replace failing schools with new, high quality schools.
3.Increase graduation rates in every neighborhood.
4.Make sure all graduates are ready for college, career and work.
5.Update textbooks, computers, and technologies.
6.Maintain disciplined classrooms where students learn every day.
7.Provide real world education in local businesses.
8.Make the school year longer for students who need it most.
9.Help fund outstanding, accountable charter schools.
10.Base teacher pay more on performance.”
1. Most districts are doing this on an ongoing basis, nothing new.
2. How does one know that these “new, high quality schools” are high quality if they aren’t even in existence yet. More marketing bullshit.
3. Most districts are doing this on an ongoing basis, nothing new.
4. Most districts are doing this on an ongoing basis, nothing new.
5. Most districts are doing this on an ongoing basis, nothing new.
6. Most districts are doing this on an ongoing basis, nothing new.
7. What does a “real world education in local businesses” mean? That the business can get free work done through “internships”. That’s already happening at the university level. Yes, let’s teach the peons to lick their master’s boots for free and tell them they must be enjoying it.
8. Who are those students “who need it the most”. Oh yeah, those uppity poor minority lower class students. Certainly not Ryan’s, Kasich’s, or Jackson’s kids.
9. And how do we know that the new charters will be “outstanding”? More marketing bullshit. And they certainly won’t be accountable to the taxpayers but they will be accountable to the financiers to insure that a proper level of stealing, oops sorry I meant to say profits, is maintained.
10. HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!!!!! Yep, VAM, SPAM, VAM, VAM, SPAM, CANNED HAM, VAM, SPAM, SPAMELOT, VAMELOT, YES WE’VE REACHED OUR EDUCATIONAL CAMELOT!!
Yep, this is such a bold and exciting turnaround, creative destruction plan, yep, yep, yep, ep up!!
thanks, Duane, for your keen analysis. I am glad that you pointed out the reformer trick of announcing that the schools not yet created will be successful. That is standard operating procedure.
You’re welcome. It’s just that we’ve seen this so often now that you’d think it would be second nature for us “anti-reformers” to spot the deformers nonsense.
When I was in Detroit, I heard that the privatization plan of business community would bring about 90% graduation rate. Same in Indianapolis, where abandonment of public education will produce miracles.
Thank you for your supportive response, Diane. I agree that I thought Terry was a relatively fair-minded reformer. I was really taken aback by his really personal response to the column. It seems that he really has a lot invested in this Cleveland Plan for some reason. He’s been more fair-minded about his own Charters than he has on this plan.
As for the for-profit thing, I should have explained that quote I used better. I’m more of an agnostic than an athesit on the for-profit angle. I have seen no evidence at the moment that for-profits can help education. However, I have always felt that those who should profit the most in our society are those who help it thrive (as opposed to entertainers, athletes, etc.). If someone comes up with a way to help kids truly overcome poverty and demographic challenges to succeed, I think they should be among the most rewarded members of our society, just as the doctors who cure AIDS or Cancer should be. No one has done it yet, but I don’t want to close the door on that possibility. Perhaps I’m naive, I admit.
In short, I don’t want anyone to think that I’m fine with K-12, Inc., White Hat, etc. Those guys are not deserving of the millions they have made. I just hold out hope that perhaps someone will. Someday.
Stephen,
“If someone comes up with a way to help kids truly overcome poverty and demographic challenges to succeed, I think they should be among the most rewarded members of our society, just as the doctors who cure AIDS or Cancer should be. No one has done it yet, but I don’t want to close the door on that possibility. Perhaps I’m naive, I admit.”
Naive, yes. To say that one person should benefit so much more than others on projects that are admittedly a cooperative venture, teaching, finding cures, etc. . . is to maintain the status quo of that great American cult of the hero, superman, individual who is so great they should be able to take more than the many others who enabled their success. No, that’s the me, me, mine, mine Randian attitude that permeates this society. And that is sad!
Duane