Dienne Anum, a parent and a regular contributor to the blog discussion, read and reviewed Richard Whitmire’s “On the Rocketship,” about Rocketship charters. She posted her review on Amazon and shares it with us.

She writes:

In his own words: “arrogant, elitist, myopic and willfully naïve”

Back when Rocketship was little more than a twinkle in John Danner’s eyes, author Richard Whitmire was busy falling in love with Michelle Rhee. She of bee eating, mouth taping and on-air principal firing fame. She whose “DC miracle” has evaporated in a puff of smoke, proven to be a short lived result of intensive test prep, curriculum narrowing, bullying and outright cheating. She who now goes by Michelle Johnson, fertilizer peddler.

But love is a difficult thing to learn from and Whitmire is in love again, this time with the brash young John Danner who’s one time success selling a start up company when he was barely old enough to rent a car without paying a premium makes him the smartest guy in the room, qualified to reinvent everyone else’s education and disrupt everyone else’s lives.

I don’t know what it is with all these rich athletes, celebrities and Silicon Valley types and their missionary need to “save” education for poor black and Latino kids. Do they unconsciously know they’re not worthy of the fortune that Lady Luck has bestowed on them and they need to “give back”, but they can’t relinquish control to do it? In any case, what gives them the right? Do they feel compelled to tell other professionals how to do their jobs? (Actually, apparently so, as illustrated by the cute little story about two different Rocketship execs showing up at the emergency room and demanding to skip the damn tests, just give me antibiotics.)

The level of hubris, backed by ignorance, displayed by these start-up gurus and celebrated by Whitmire is truly astounding (not to mention nauseating). Because they were “successful” in business (meaning, as Whitmire himself admits, they fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time), they somehow know everything there is to know about running the “business” of education. Every business must be measured by certain metrics, and test scores are the only metric that matter to Danner and his compatriots. Anything and everything is justified so long as it raises test scores (or even if it doesn’t, because, hey, it’s all a learning curve, right? Who cares whose kids they’re learning on?). Building cheap, modular school buildings, stacking kids in overcrowded classrooms, churning through teachers, enforcing authoritarian “no excuses” rules and punishments, sticking kids in front of computers for an hour or more at a time supervised by low-wage babysitters – all things that no Silicon Valley exec would subject his own children to – are not only justified but celebrated when they’re done in the name of “closing the achievement gap”.

Whitmire just seems to take delight in tearing down everything associated with traditional education without offering evidence supporting the effectiveness of education “reform” except the rise in test scores produced by “high performing charters” (defined, rather circularly as those which raise test scores). Traditional education (the kind of education people like Danner and Whitmire seek out for their children, incidentally) assumes that each child is a unique individual and that the purpose of education is to guide that individual to take his or her place in society, not just as a worker, but as a participant in a democratic republic. Experienced teachers are valued for the same reasons experienced doctors and lawyers are – they’ve developed the art as much as the science of their profession, they know how to build relationships, react to trouble signs and manage difficulties. It is recognized that children need a holistic approach that includes a well-rounded curriculum including history, science, foreign languages, art, music, PE and recess, as well as a focus on social and emotional issues. Unions, while they do have a tendency to build self-serving relationships with the powerful rather than stand up for student interests, are important for protecting teachers from the whims of administrators (and corporate entrepreneurs), which, in turn, provides stability and a safe learning environment for students.

Whitmire has no use for any of that. Research (usually done by charter supporters) supposedly proves that long-term veteran teachers have no better effects on test scores (there’s that metric again) than second or third year teachers, so Whitmire accepts the notion that teachers can become “superstar” teachers by their second or third year and be ready for “leadership” roles soon after that. The only subjects that are of any real concern for the “reformers” are math and English Language Arts because those are the only ones tested. Other subjects, as well as arts, PE, recess, etc. are all nice if you can fit them in, but they’re just a “distraction” from a “rigorous” focus on “academics”. And I don’t even need to tell you Whitmire’s opinion of unions.

Whitmire is just so convinced that Danner, Rocketship and the other charter schools are “right”, that he is dismissive and even mocking of anything critical of them. Even as he talks about “Fibonacci” schools replicating themselves to create thousands of nearly identical schools taking over public schools, Whitmire can’t seem to accept that there is legitimate opposition to them. Community opposition must, of course, come from the dreaded self-interested unions and public school teachers who are simply defending their turf. (The idea that support for Rocketship has anything to do with well-funded organization and aggressive marketing from Rocketship itself (which money comes from where, exactly?) isn’t something that Whitmire wants to get too deep into.) And while he admits that many of the charges against Rocketship and other charters are valid, he simultaneously denies or dismisses such claims. For instance, he admits that Rocketship requires intense parental involvement which is itself a form of selection and skimming which public schools can’t do, yet over and over he insists that Rocketship serves the same kids. He admits that Rocketship schools send a great deal of money back to their central offices, but denies that this is important. And he doesn’t even touch the issue of Danner’s compensation and that of other charter leaders compared to equivalent public school leaders (Eva Moskowitz makes nearly half a million a year to run schools with a few thousand students, compared to half of that for the chancellor of New York City who oversees millions of children.)

Perhaps most egregious is Whitmire’s treatment of Diane Ravitch. He is so contemptuous and mocking of her that his bias leaps off the page. It is just assumed that her objections to charter schools stem from entrenched self-interest or just plain old obstructionism. Furthermore, he portrays her as some all-powerful Goliath controller because she has sold thousands of books, while the poor David reformers are reduced to mere op-eds. Which is actually a riot because if you randomly picked op-eds from major papers on educational topics, about 90% of them would favor “reform”. And it’s just a bit rich for Whitmire to spend his book complaining that Diane writes books. Maybe he’s just jealous that hers sell honestly, while his are foisted on charter supporters and parents. In any case, Diane posts 5 to 15 new posts a day, every single day, on her blog ranging along all educational topics, some her own writings, some aggregated from other bloggers and journalists, some letters from teachers and musings from commenters. Many of them are deeply based in research, many others give an on-the-ground view of what teaching – in both public and charter schools – has become. You cannot read her blog for even a week and still think that she is just making it all up because she’s some sort of evil genius out to conquer the poor, innocent underdog charter promoters. What interest does Diane have anyway? She long ago made all the money she needs (a great deal of which, by the way, was made in the first Bush administration promoting accountability and charters until she realized their destructive effects). Her kids are grown and gone. She’s a 76-year-old woman utilizing the platform she’s earned in order to save public education from being privatized (Whitmire insists the the “reformers” don’t want to privatize education, they just want to profit from it.) And in any case, I didn’t see where Whitmire offered Diane a chance for rebuttal.

I suppose Whitmire should get credit for his “honesty” in discussing the setbacks and test score drops in connection with the “model change” in which, with no research support, no development, no pilot trial, Danner and co-founder Preston Smith decided to knock down walls and combine classrooms. There was, as one might expect, a bit of a revolt over the situation because teachers felt they weren’t consulted or listened to and that the change was rushed without adequate support. But I won’t give him that credit because from Whitmire’s point of view, this all just goes to show how “flexible” and “innovative” charter schools are able to be, as if change and innovation are good things in and of themselves. There is no recognition on Whitmire’s part, just as there is no recognition from corporate America in general, that there are usually very valid reasons to resist change and that things that have endured for decades or even centuries usually have good reasons for doing so. After all this innovation and disruption, the real lesson that should be learned is that John Dewey was right 100 years ago.

Rocketship’s approach to “learning” is very gimmicky and superficial. A “superstar” teacher is one who has mastered Doug Lemov’s “Teach Like a Champion” techniques. If you want to see “no excuses” behavioral control in action, or if you need some tips for training your dog, I recommend searching for his videos online. Rocketeers start every morning with a “launch” that involves a bunch of dancing and shouting to extremely loud music. “Blended learning” is basically computer time with “adaptive” programs that teach each student identical, standardized information and skills, but at each student’s individual pace. Classes are overstuffed with minimal opportunity for one-on-one interaction or small group discussion. In describing one class, Whitmire writes, “In theory, Sgambelluri’s class is discussing slavery but every minute or so the lesson briefly veers into short-duration brain teasers that keep every student in rapture.” I guess because slavery itself just isn’t very interesting. Or relevant for students of color. Being taught by young, white newbie teachers. But, hey, as long as those test scores are up.

The reality is that test scores are a very poor metric for school “success” and it is to our nation’s detriment that they are being used as the metric of choice for school and teacher “performance”. Test scores measure only the thinnest and least important slice of learning – that which can be regurgitated on a multiple-choice bubble test. Emphasizing test scores creates children who are insecure, conforming, risk-averse and focused on getting the one “right” answer. It stifles creativity and individuality, the freedom of exploration, the ability to “fail” safely in order to learn from such failure. Rocketship’s (and other charters’) success improving test scores (which itself is highly debated, even if KIPP’s own study showed – surprise – that KIPP “outperforms” public schools with “similar” kids) doesn’t prove Rocketship’s (or other charter’s) superiority.

While Whitmire derides traditional schools as being the “status quo”, charters have been around now for 20+ years. To me, that seems long enough to demonstrate other proof of success. What percentage of graduates from “high performing” charter schools have gone on to graduate from higher education? What form of higher education? What careers are these graduates engaged in? I don’t believe that charter graduates are overly represented at elite colleges, but I bet they are overly represented at the pop-up, for-profit colleges that have sprouted in the last decade churning out our nation’s supply of medical assistants and HVAC repairmen. Which is not a knock against those graduates – the nation certainly needs medical assistants and HVAC repairmen, both of which are more probably honest livings than many of the charter supporters and funders. But those are careers for which those kids would have been perfectly qualified with a standard public high school education. I think it’s safe to say that Rocketship is not creating the next generation of rocket scientists.

One thing I did find interesting is that Whitmire admits that, contrary to the elixir we’ve been sold, “choice” does not lead to quality. It turns out that “market forces” and “competition” do not, in fact, lead to better schools. Parents – surprise- choose schools for all sorts of reasons that may not have anything to do with quality, so “poor performing” schools may stay in business anyway. But as far as “competition” goes, I have to admit I’m a little confused because all the charters seem so chummy with each other and they all use nearly identical processes – “drill-and-kill”, “blended [computer] learning” and “no excuses” to turn out nearly identical “products” (students who will become future workers). Where’s the innovation in doing what everyone else is doing? Isn’t that the problem with public schools?

Speaking of problems with public schools, if charters are the new way of the future, why have they all been so reluctant to take over an entire “failing” school or district? We’re told that charters possess the “secret sauce” to raise every child to “excellence”, yet when offered the chance to bring that sauce to every child, even those without parental support, those who are chronically absent or tardy, those who are pregnant or parenting, those who go to bed hungry and show up at school cold, those with incarcerated or substance addicted parents, those who are homeless and all the other “problem” children in public schools, oddly enough, they all tend to balk, as Rocketship did when offered the opportunity in San Jose. I guess cream is a key ingredient in that sauce.

In parting, I have a few questions and a challenge for Danner, his wealthy education “reform” compatriots and their unquestioning supporters like Whitmire:

1. Would you send your own children to Rocketship (or KIPP, ASPIRE, YES Prep, Success Academy, etc.)?

2. Would you recommend such schools to your other elite and wealthy friends?

3. Do you plan to hire graduates of such schools for your own companies?

Challenge: If you really care about poor students of color, why don’t you work to make their schools look more like the schools you send your own children to?