John Merrow, who doggedly pursued the cheating scandal in D.C. here takes issue with someone named John Buntin who wrote of a fictional match-up between Michelle Rhee and me.
Merrow chides Buntin for ignorance of the facts that Merrow covered. He sent this letter, but got no reply:
“I have a couple of observations about your Rhee/Ravitch piece that I hope you don’t mind my sharing. The first is a minor quibble about the firing scene. We filmed that as part of my NewsHour coverage–we followed the young Chancellor for her entire three years in DC (12 NewsHour reports). Only later did we include it in our film for Frontline. I allowed Oprah to use the footage, and Davis Guggenheim appropriated it without our permission for “Waiting for ‘Superman,’” although he did eventually pay us for using it.
My second objection is substantial and has to do with Rhee’s record as Chancellor. Not long after she departed, USA Today broke the story of widespread erasures on the DC-CAS, the city’s standardized test, during Rhee’s first and second years. We covered that in our Frontline film.
“However, AFTER the film I obtained a copy of a confidential memo that made it clear just how much she knew of the erasures and how she failed to act. That is summarized here: http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=6232
“While “Rhee vs. Ravitch” is a compelling headline and a sexy feature, it’s a roadblock to understanding American education. Ravitch is a passionate advocate who argues from facts. In contrast, Rhee’s policies were tried, and they failed. By almost every conceivable measure, the DC schools are no better than before her tenure. In key areas of student attendance, graduation rates, and principal and teacher turnover, they are worse. Central offices in abutting districts have shrunk, but DCPS’ has grown considerably. Even DC’s most recent gains on NAEP, which began 12-15 years BEFORE Rhee’s tenure, seem to have been fueled by an influx of better-educated families (gentrification) and quality pre-school. Here’s a summary: http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=6490
“I urge you to revisit this story. There is a titanic struggle going on in public education, one that is complex and deserving of coverage. Using Michelle Rhee as symbolic of ‘one side’ is misleading, unfortunately. Wendy Kopp and Teach for America might better represent one side and Ravitch another, although the issue has more than two sides.”
A good response from John Merrow. Read the whole thing as it is quite interesting.
Mr. Buntin, not known to me, should have covered–or pretended to cover–the debate I was supposed to have with Michelle Rhee on February 6 at Lehigh University. She agreed to the debate, agreed to the date but then began making demands about the format. First, she demanded that we needed seconds. She chose Rod Paige, who had been Secretary of Education in the George W. Bush administration. After a long silence and no signed contract, she required that we have two partners. My choices: Pasi Sahlberg of Finland and Helen Gym, parent leader from Philadelphia. Again a long silence. Rhee then cancelled, saying she could not find a second partner. All very puzzling.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Frontline should air a revised version of Mr. Merrow’s film, including the important information that came out after it first aired.
LikeLike
“Again a long silence. Rhee then cancelled, saying she could not find a second partner. All very puzzling”
Not really. She sized up the situation and realized she was scheduled to be in what Star Trek called the “Kobayashi Maru Scenario” the infamous no-win scenario. It was primarily used to assess the discipline, character and command capabilities of someone facing an impossible situation when there is no one answer to the problem. She correctly assessed her probable outcome.
As I write this I’m struck by the additional parallel that like Michelle Rhee’s “success” in DC and the erasure scandal, James T. Kirk was the only Starfleet officer to ever beat the Kobayashi Maru Scenario – he cheated . . .
LikeLike
What is there to comment on, Mr. Merrow?
Michelle Rhee is afraid of Diane Ravitch’s intellect . . . . perhaps rightfully so.
Michell Rhee is little more than a chicken . . . . out to make a BUCK-BUCK-BUCK-BUCK . . . . .
LikeLike
Yes, Rhee is overshadowed by Diane’s intellect, but she is intelligent, in a clever/manipulative sort of way, and that might be effective with some members of an audience.
No, what really terrifies her is Diane’s integrity, something Rhee must avoid the way a vampire avoids sunlight.
LikeLike
Not puzzling, cowardly. Instead of debating, they buy media airtime to spread propaganda.
LikeLike
From the Buntin article referenced:
“However, the most serious challenge is an intellectual one.”
I wonder what he means by the “. . . . serious challenge is an intellectual one.” Is that not where all arguments/challenges should start?? Shouldn’t as many of the intended and unintended consequences be laid out in a fashion that one would be able to determine whether the proposed policies/procedures would be a wise course of action? Shouldn’t the monetary and political “challenges”, although a small secondary part of the calculations be addressed after the philosophical, logical and rational ones have been thoroughly examined. It seems to me that we have far too little rational, logical and philosophical debate and discussions on these types of broad sweeping policy initiatives as it is.
And Buntin wrote:
“A decade ago, attacking the education reform movement seemed almost sacrilegious. Today, it seems cutting edge. That change is due largely to the intellectual influence of a high-profile defector from the reform movement, 75-year-old education historian Diane Ravitch.”
Wasn’t sacrilegious to many of us, rational logical thought combined with common sense had shown that the edudeformers’ educational malpractices were bound to cause much harm to far too many students, and by extension teachers, schools and communities. The many drawbacks of what Diane used to be in support of were well known years ago. If one doesn’t look one doesn’t find. Diane looked and found!
And he says:
“As Common Core prepares to launch, states have a rare chance to get education reform right.”
I’d say the only chance right now is the complete backing off of the Common Corporate Stalinistic Standards (CCSS). Throw em in the trash and start over. Well, maybe line the bird cage so as to get some usage out of them.
In quoting Ripley, Buntin states:
“More important, Ripley makes a compelling argument that improving the quality of teachers and instituting well-considered curricula can improve educational attainment, boosting economic growth in the process. In the world described by Ripley, Ravitch’s complacency is misguided. But so is the reformers’ narrow focus on standardized testing. The best way forward is likely more nuanced, and more complicated.”
Not quite so sure that Diane has ever been complacent in researching, writing, discussing, and helping implement policies. Quite the opposite (even when she was on the “dark side”-ha ha!!)
And finally he writes:
“Ours is a country that yearns for the quick fix—iPads in schools, massive open online courses, e-charter schools. What’s needed instead, argues Ripley, is a focus on teachers and curricula, as well as something more intangible—a belief that our children’s lives really depend on their education.”
No doubt about that first sentence and with well considered research, rational and logical discussions, and the small scale testing that includes all of the “stake holders” in all phases, then we might just stumble upon a solution for a particular problem in a particular place at a particular time, and most certainly not likely to be “nationwide”.
LikeLike
Not that I would expect Buntin to understand what I have written. Yeah that’s a challenge, Mr. Buntin, an “intellectual challenge”!
LikeLike
Duane Swacker: the John Buntin piece is so ill-thought out and nonsensical that—quite honestly—it gave me a bit of a headache.
First off, how could Mr. Buntin be so utterly foolish as to use Amanda Ripley as a credible source on any point—when Ms. Ripley doesn’t even know the difference between a euro and a dollar?
Don’t believe me? Click below:
Link: http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/ripleys-botched-attack-on-ravitch-a-euro-is-not-a-dollar/
As if that’s not bad enough, more fantastical yet is another Ripley entry in the “believe it or not” sweepstakes. Note this rather mild admonition on the part of Dr. Schneider to Ms. Ripley: “The Finnish poor can only be represented on international tests if they first birth the children.”
😡
Of course, such fictions can only come about if one strictly adheres to hard-line Marxist principles in order to win $tudent $ucce$$ at any cost to one’s personal integrity.
“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others. ”
😎
¿Again? Groucho.
LikeLike
Rhee debating Ravitch would have been like a kid with a sharp stick (Rhee) trying to defeat a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (Ravitch). The goal posts Rhee-volting continued to move for the debate after 1st agreeing to it were nothing more than an escape hatch the size of Cleveland, a transparently manufactured excuse. I’m sure Rhee-volting was advised NOT to get into a discussion of facts with Diane. The courage of Rhee-voltings convictions remain unsupported by reality. I’ve seen some signs that her front group is transitioning to a more purely ALEC model, abandoning the failed pretense of being grass roots and engaging parents directly in favor of more generic “loss aversion” propaganda targeted at those same parents, attempting to revisit how their states stack up on the legislative front. More 1st place finishes for the ‘achievements’ of places like Loser-iana.
LikeLike
I actually think it’s progress. The usual template for coverage is “unions versus reformers” which is how ed reformers themselves portray this, which is a beneficial political frame for them. It’s lazy for journalists to do it.
It’s particularly ridiculous in states that don’t have teachers unions, yet they do it all the time. Both Rhee and Sarah Palin set it up this way, which should tell you something about what’s behind it.
It’s been framed as self-interested union thugs versus purer than the driven snow reformers for two decades now.
LikeLike