Michael Barber and Joel Klein have written a report for the World Economic Forum about how to achieve greatness in education. Their report is titled “Unleashing Greatness: Nine Plays to Spark Innovation in Education.”
Michael Barber is the chief education advisor for Pearson. Joel Klein is the ex-chancellor of the New York City public schools, former CEO of Rupert Murdoch’s Amplify (which lost $500 million and was sold off by Murdoch), and current chief policy and strategy officer to Oscar Health Insurance, which recently announced a radical downsizing.
The old ways no longer work, they say. What is needed for the future is “whole system reform,” which has happened or is happening (they say) in Madrid, Punjab, London, and New York City. Presumably, Barber takes credit for London and Klein takes credit for New York City. (I note, however, as a resident of New York City, that the schools continue to struggle with many problems, and no one refers to the “New York a City miracle” these days.)
Fortunately, Professor Stephen Dinham of the University of Melbourne in Australia took on the job of analyzing the Barber-Klein formula for greatness.
He sees the report as an illustration of what Pasi Sahlberg called the “Global Education Reform Movement” or GERM.
He writes:
“The terms ‘playbook’ and ‘unleash’ are loaded and instructive. A playbook, in sports, provides a list of strategies or moves for players and teams to follow. These are essentially step-by-step formulae intended to achieve success. In the case of this report, there are nine. Oh that education – and interrelated services such as health, employment and public infrastructure – could be reduced to such a simplistic list. The term unleash implies releasing from restriction and confinement, in this case, opening up education to ‘choice’ and the ‘free’ market. As I have noted, typically, ‘Choice, competition, privatization and the free market are [seen as] the answers to almost any question about education. (Dinham, 2015a: 3).
“Let’s now consider the latest simplistic recipe designed to address the ‘manufactured crisis’ in education (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Berliner & Glass, 2015), a crisis that is in danger of becoming reality if we ignore the evidence and follow such ideologically and financially underpinned and driven prescriptions (Dinham, 2016).
“The authors’ ‘plays’ are:
“Provide a compelling vision for the future
Set ambitious goals to force innovation
Create choice and competition
Pick many winners
Benchmark and track progress
Evaluate and share the success of new innovations
Combine greater accountability and autonomy
Invest in and empower agents of change
Reward successes (and productive failures).
“Detail on ‘how’ to achieve the above is lacking, although brief case studies where these have purportedly been successful are provided (e.g, New York, Chile). A common theme is the belief mentioned previously that deregulation, competition and choice will deliver an overall lift in educational performance. The evidence is however, either weak (e.g., on greater school autonomy) or contradictory (e.g., vouchers, charter schools, free schools, chains or academies) (Dinham, 2015a).”
Read both the report and the critique. Funny the authors don’t look at Chile and Sweden, two nations that took the path they recommend, with disastrous results.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Make Education Great Again?
Oh Great …
In respect to Sweden, what’s the most persuasive evidence of “disastrous results”? Decline in PISA scores? I’m not familiar with the full breadth of the most recent and convincing research, but did see this below.
Independent Schools and Long-Run Educational Outcomes: Evidence from Sweden’s Large Scale Voucher Reform
Anders Böhlmark, SOFI, Stockholm University, IFAU and CREAM
Mikael Lindahl, Uppsala University, CESifo, IFAU, IZA and UCLS
Discussion Paper No. 6683
June 2012
Independent Schools and Long-Run Educational Outcomes:
Evidence from Sweden’s Large Scale Voucher Reform*
Abstract:
“This paper evaluates average educational performance effects of an expanding independentschool sector at the compulsory level by assessing a radical voucher reform that was implemented in Sweden in 1992. Starting from a situation where all public schools were essentially local monopolists, the degree of independent schools has developed very differently across municipalities over time as a result of this reform. We regress the change in educational performance outcomes on the increase in the share of independent-school students between Swedish municipalities. We find that an increase in the share of independent-school students improves average performance at the end of compulsory school as well as long-run educational outcomes. We show that these effects are very robust with respect to a number of potential issues, such as grade inflation and pre-reform trends. However, for most outcomes, we do not detect positive and statistically significant effects until approximately a decade after the reform. This is notable, but not surprising given that it took time for independent schools to become more than a marginal phenomenon in Sweden. We do not find positive effects on school expenditures. Hence, the educational performance effects are interpretable as positive effects on school productivity. We further find that the average effects primarily are due to external effects (e.g., school competition), and not that independent-school students gain significantly more than public-school students.”
and from the conclusion:
“Our positive estimates might appear surprising given Sweden’s relative decline in scores on international tests such as PISA since the mid 1990s. However, we do not find significant positive effects for the earlier years, when Swedish relative test scores declined most dramatically. Additionally, because we look at variation across municipalities it can very well be the case that the municipalities with few or no independent schools have contributed most to this decline. Either way, we do not find any support for the belief that an increase in the share of independent school students provides an explanation for Sweden’s relative decline.”
the privatization of public education in Sweden has been a disaster–to the point that the country’s conservatives–who advocated for this “reform,” are now apologizing and admitting they were wrong.
Test scores and inferential leaps with statistics are the not credibile indicators of educational quality and least of all in a report that presents the New Orleans Recovery School District (RSD) as a model to emulate. Hot air, and look at the date of the report cited by Rosen.
Stephen Ronan,
To learn more about vouchers in Sweden, I recommend you read Professor Henry Levin about the subject.
Lost in translation or, are the sources who are quoted, inept spinners?
Relative to the conclusion, paraphrasing, “We don’t find evidence, therefore, we conclude, the opposing view is wrong…” Why wasn’t rigorous research funded?
If the study proved cause and effect, between school privatization’s competitive influence and academic outcome, that is a notable finding. In the US, it’s the fallback spin for ideologues who really don’t have evidence beyond their belief. The conclusion’s wording, “It can very well be”, is more accurately labeled “speculation without foundation”. If the supporting points are clear and substantiated, to (1) explain away, Sweden’s test score decline during the period of privatization and (2) to link its grade inflation to privatization, why aren’t the findings bullet pointed in a list? A claim that test performance was in decline about 20 years ago and continues, certainly doesn’t advance an argument for privatization. Greater grade inflation, correlated with higher ratio’s of voucher and independent students, proves what? The US experienced grade inflation, independent of variables that are in this study.
Productivity gain is not proved when schools receive no additional funding and experience grade inflation.
From the article’s introduction:
” However, despite the theoretical arguments that school choice should have a positive impact, the empirical evidence is mixed.”
And the study was “sponsored” (underwritten?) by the “IZA [which] is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation.”
HANDELSBLATT INVESTIGATION
Deutsche Post Foundation Under Scrutiny
BY NORBERT HÄRING
Deutsche Post, Germany’s largest employer, is using a non-profit foundation in Bonn to finance a think tank that lobbies against Germany’s minimum wage and labor deregulation. The entity is headed by a former Post chief executive who was convicted of tax evasion in 2009.
former Post chief executive who was convicted of tax evasion in 2009.
read
post_dpa
Is Deutsche Post bending Germany’s non-profit rules to lobby secretly against labor market reforms? A Handelsblatt probe tries to sort out the situation. Source: DPA
“‘Not-for-profit’ isn’t the first phrase that comes to mind when thinking about Klaus Zumwinkel, the disgraced former head of the state-run German postal service, Deutsche Post.
Yet despite his conviction in 2009 for tax evasion, the former executive is still in charge of a multi-million-euro, not-for-profit foundation and an influential non-profit economic research institute, both of which have links to Deutsche Post.
Mr. Zumwinkel, who is in self-imposed exile in Italy and London, founded the Deutsche Post Foundation in 1998 during his tenure as chief executive and chairman of the postal service.
But with the exception of a mailing address, little has been made public about this organization.”
Not sure exactly how this is all related but we’ve seen think tanks sponsored/underwritten by non-profits to come up with “research” that just coincidentally coincides with the agenda of the funder.
Thank you señor Swacker for an important info that is worth to repeat:
“Not sure exactly how this is all related but we’ve seen think tanks sponsored/underwritten by non-profits to COME UP with “research” that just COINCIDENTALLY coincides with the AGENDA OF THE FUNDER.”
Today, on NYT, there is an article is similar to your expression”
[From NYT, on Monday, August 8th, 2016]
Researchers or Corporate Allies? Think Tanks Blur the Line
By ERIC LIPTON and BROOKE WILLIAMS
Think tanks are seen as independent, but their scholars often push donors’ agendas, amplifying a culture of corporate influence in Washington.
[end quote]
BTW, the Global Education Reformed Movement is known as GERM, by its definition, as follows
GERM: a microorganism, especially one that causes DISEASE.
synonyms:
microbe, microorganism, bacillus, bacterium, virus;
informal BUG
Can we detect and squash BUG? Yes, we can.
Can we eliminate DISEASE? Ah, we need 9 steps:
1) Eat well = a whole child education concept must be applied
2) Exercise in a routine = OPT OUT all malpractice in OVER-testing.
3) Recognize corrupted and faked degree in administration = dismantle all “money buy credit” degree and un-qualified TFA program.
4) Unify all teachers, parents and students to inform and to share our culture, our value and our belief in democratic society in a monthly town hall meeting’
5) All retiree educators should run for local political positions like Councillor.
6) All young and local lawyers from local public university should run for Mayor, governor and Congressman or woman,
7) We will have all grassroots from Councillor, Mayor, Governor and Senators who unify in working toward the common good = economy equality,
8) People will have the power to detect BAD MEDIA and are able to eliminate it from the beginning.
9) Government and people are the unity of one power to sharpen and to maintain American Democratic Spirit, but CONSERVATIVE in the common good for all.
You may call me a dreamer, but I am not the only one. May
“To learn more about vouchers in Sweden, I recommend you read Professor Henry Levin about the subject.”
Thanks, Diane, I see that Henry Levin, in his Powerpoint, praises the methodology of Bohlmark and Lindahl (2012) http://ftp.iza.org/dp6683.pdf, which I quoted from above. And also the work of Niepel, Edmark, & Frolich (2012). “Excellent studies using two different methods to capture effects.”
I see the latter group in 2013 wrote:
“Even though we use different methods and identify a slightly different effect than previous studies on the Swedish choice reform, we come to a similar conclusion, namely that the choice reforms did not lead to large changes in average student outcomes, especially in the long run.” http://www.sole-jole.org/13067.pdf
While in 2014, Edmark, Frölich and Wondratschek wrote:
“We can conclude that our analyses show no evidence indicating that children from a socio-economically disadvantaged or immigration background have been harmed by school choice as it evolved after the introduction of the 1992 reform. The effects are small or zero and similar for different subgroups. If anything, they rather indicate slightly more positive effects on some outcomes for socio-economically disadvantaged children than for socio-economically more advantaged children, although the positive effects often disappear in alternative specifications.”
Click to access wp2014-16-Swedens-school-choice-reform-and-equality-of-opportunity.pdf
Such research falls rather far short of persuasive evidence of unmitigated disaster attributable to vouchers/choice, doesn’t it?
One principal area where Levin finds insufficient results to justify a conclusion is in respect to “Social Cohesion”: “Preparing the young for democratic and civic participation by providing a common educational experience with respect to curriculum, values, language, and institutional orientations so that students from many different backgrounds will accept and support a common set of social, political, and economic arrangements that are foundational to a stable and democratic society.”
Perhaps of at least tangential interest to that, an OECD Report, while stressing PISA-test declines, also states:
“some international assessments show positive performance in selected domains. For example, Swedish students performed above international averages in assessments of civic knowledge and English as a foreign language. In the 2009 International Civic and Citizenship Study (ICCS), Swedish Year 8 students (age 14-15) performed in the international top five among the 38 participating countries in terms of civic knowledge. Sweden was outperformed only by Chinese Taipei, Denmark, Finland and Korea. Civic knowledge refers to knowledge and understanding of how civic societies and systems work, as well as civic principles, participation and identities (Schulz et al., 2010). Swedish students also show high achievement levels in English as a foreign language, as measured by the European Commission’s European Survey on Language Competencies (ESLC). In the 2011 survey, Swedish Year 9 students (around age 15) had the best results in reading and listening among the 15 European education systems that participated. Swedish students were also among the top performers in terms of writing (European Commission, 2012). Sweden was the only Nordic country to take part in the ESLC study. Despite the strong performance of Swedish students in civics and citizenship and English as a foreign language, recognised as key competences for lifelong learning in the 21st century, Swedish students are underperforming on other key competences like communication in their mother tongue (Swedish) and competence in mathematics and science.”
That OECD Report “Improving Schools in Sweden: An OECD Perspective” is the most useful resource I have found on the subject, at least the fraction that I have read thus far. Haven’t yet gotten a solid sense of to what degree if at all the relative weakness in the “mother tongue (Swedish)” relates to a substantial increase in the schools of children of another mother tongue.
Click to access Improving-Schools-in-Sweden.pdf
Stephen,
I am not sure why you came to this blog to celebrate vouchers and charters. There are many reasons to oppose them, not least because these free-market approaches have been found wanting again and again. Most recently, Mark Dynarski wrote a post saying that vouchers had failed in Louisiana and Indiana. Charters have become a means for entrepreneurs to enter the education market and make fame and fortune.
More importantly, I believe in the democratic importance of a strong public school system. So, if you have come for an argument, you have come to the right place.
But I don’t have time to argue with you every day.
I am busy gathering information and research about the importance of public education and the failure of the market philosophy.
Diane: “I am not sure why you came to this blog to celebrate vouchers and charters.”
Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else? I don’t recall ever even once typing the word “voucher” at this site prior to the posting above, and if you see celebration there, I’m mystified.
Trying to think of the closest I’ve gotten on this site to mentioning vouchers, there was this reference I made to a MacLeod/Urquiola paper “Anti-Lemons: School Reputation and Educational Quality”.
Their research would have some implications for vouchers, but I’d characterize my mood there as more studiously inquisitive than celebratory. OK, I’ll give you “subtly sanctimonious” if you want, but no party hats and balloons.
And then there was the time you vivaciously celebrated some errant musings of voucher enthusiast, Jay Greene, and I gently pointed out the error of your ways:
But his subject there wasn’t vouchers, and I didn’t mention them.
“There are many reasons to oppose them, not least because these free-market approaches have been found wanting again and again. Most recently, Mark Dynarski wrote a post saying that vouchers had failed in Louisiana and Indiana.”
Yeah, I saw that and continue to appreciate your work bringing such research to our attention. So far as I recall, I have yet to express enthusiasm here, or for that matter anywhere else, for vouchers. But I’m not expert on the subject and prepared to change my mind if the research evidence warrants.
Stephen,
Your comments on Sweden are a defense of the free market, including vouchers.
Charter schools and voucher schools are an excuse to do nothing to help the vast majority of students.
The free market benefits the haves and harms the have-nots.
Dr. Ravitch’s patience with commenters, who are propagandists, self-important, passive-aggressive, greedy, abusive to students and taxpayers, short-sighted, manipulative, amoral and immoral, anti-democratic, and incapable of coherency, sets a standard to be greatly admired.
Just two more adults completely detached from the realities of classroom life. Two more adults who just don’t understand the relationship between children, their teachers, and the demands of the school year. Just two more BS artists peddling their unsolicited ideas and their philosophy of disruptive change. Two more idiots who can’t seem to comprehend the scale of 50,000,000 students, 3,000,000 teachers, and 100,000 schools.
Why is anyone listening to them?
The “reformers” are operating in an alternative reality. Much of what is proposed here has been tried and either failed or offered meager results. Privatization has produced no magic bullets, no secret sauce, no miracles and nothing scalable. Privatization is not lead by visionaries; it is lead by vulture capitalists whose primary goal is to gain access to public funds for profit, tax credits, write-offs, and real estate grabs.
There is nothing noble or innovative about privatization today. The main “accomplishments” are disruption, neighborhood destruction, waste and fraud, weakening public schools and an overall climate of disinvestment in public education that serves most students.
The free market has not been free at all. The government at each level has been complicit in promoting and giving partiality to charter proliferation. Communities are being targeted, local elections are being swayed by outside money that want to destroy public education. This is a more like a rigged political scheme than any free market.
Citizens should not have to defend their public school systems. These are a public service and should not be part of any market scheme. All students should have the right to attend a free, authentic public schools.
Barber is trying to sell tests–he’s a vendor; his goal is sales, not learning.
Barber has never seen a test he doesn’t love. his “idea” of education is to reduce everything down to testable content, test the heck out of it, rinse and repeat.
asking Michael Barber to suggest policy plans for education is like asking the CEO of McDonalds to develop nutrition guidelines for school lunch programs.
^^This^^
Exactly this. Thank you.
A lot of “reform” also entails enticing school districts to buy more technology and products of assumed, not proven, value. These products are accompanied by empty promises, glossy marketing material, hype and spin. ESSA is full of opportunities for companies to sell unproven products to school districts.
I wish people would pause a bit on their assumptions that the “creative destruction” that generally works for consumer electronics is similarly workable for core democratic institutions. There’s a big difference between disrupting Blackberry users and disrupting schools.
Competition in the energy market failed in Ohio. Consumers in communities that retained their municipal energy provider, pay less than consumers in the “faux free market”.
Almost like market disruptions in essential services carry cost…
Quite a few typos – spell check please.
Testing revised, that’s all. We just keep going.
new names, new titles, new venues….same shell game
MEANINGLESS BS:
“compelling vision for the future”
“ambitious goals”
“empower agents of change”
“autonomy with accountability”
HASN’T WORKED YET . . .
“choice and competition”
“force innovation”
“share new innovations”
MEH
“pick winners” [and losers]
“track progress”
“reward successes and failures”
THANKS BUT NO THANKS BOYS.
GERM defined- a disease bearing organism.
Given the abject academic failure of charters in Ohio (proven by KnowYourCharter.com), any competitive drive is limited to, “how can politicians be better corrupted”? As the Walton/Arnold-funded study (Columbia Teachers College-December) cited, the first variable in successful charters is “political support”, with “quality”, in last place.
As long as there is the potential to rake in money, by influence peddling firms in D.C., who straddle both political parties, (Podesto Group’s CEO was the deputy campaign manager for Jeb Bush, Albright Stonebridge, reportedly has Paul Singer as a client), IMO, attacks on public education, can be expected to intensify.
“Progressive” Sen. Sherrod Brown wants $71 mil., in federal tax money, for Ohio, to expand school privatization, and we can assume the poverty-generating Walton’s do, as well. It bodes badly for America. The same Columbia Teachers College paper referenced above, showed that voters in Columbus, Ohio, don’t want charters (the only time the Ohio public has been asked). The evidence of oligarchy is provided by charter school political support.
Oh, let them have a TED Talk alongside the great awoken giant himself, Tony Robbins. Let it spark a bit of bemusement from a few intellectuals and hype artists, or better yet let it spark a few parodies performed by Jack Black and Mike Meyers. And then they can be forgotten for good. Unless Mike Meyers becomes permanently stuck in his Joel Klein character and gets inexplicably elected POTUS (really PUS). Then McZen will open to the slogan Amplify Your Soul!
These guys walk around in $2K suits and $400 haircuts but they don’t know their ass from their elbows when it comes schools, children, teaching, and learning. The perfect storm of ignorance and arrogance got us into this mess, so tell us boys, what makes your version of bullshit so special?
Michael Barber and Joel Klein are the very embodiment of hubris, arrogance and imperiousness. They are the “wrecking crew,” they know best. They remind me of Robert Moses who, with the mere twitch of the smirk on his face, would destroy and displace long standing neighborhoods and the hundreds of thousands of its inhabitants. The teachers, public schools and their students are just so many faceless peons to be shifted around and displaced like sacks of potatoes.
I swear these self serving lust for greed money and power people are nuts. The way to achieve greatness in education is to eliminate the likes of Joe Klein and Michael Barber and let the teachers with their training and certifications and with the appropriate funding do their jobs.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Diane Ravitchs blog wrote:
> dianeravitch posted: “Michael Barber and Joel Klein have written a report > for the World Economic Forum about how to achieve greatness in education. > Their report is titled “Unleashing Greatness: Nine Plays to Spark > Innovation in Education.” Michael Barber is the chief educ” >
“Sparking innovation” to what end? Higher test scores? Schools, at their best are providers of opportunity, opening eyes and doors. We help children grow into young adults trying to find their niche in life, including work, family, community, and country. What guys like Klein and Barber don’t understand is that temporary academic achievement as purportedly measured by tests in just two subject areas is a pretty poor reason to push for innovation. With even a little bit of self-reflection they would realize that test-and-punish reform has done nothing but stymie, suffocate, and impede any meaningful innovation that might actually help youngsters figure out who they are what they can be..
The warning, is in the work of economist Germa Bol. His study showed that, unlike other European nations, intense privatization in Germany, preceded the build up to WW II. The foretelling signal should be a wake up call, particularly in light of the Trump candidacy and, Robert Reich’s prediction about the election, of a much stronger bully, in 2020.
They’re snobs. They genuinely believe 150 unelected, “influential” people at the World Economic Forum can and should lead the masses.
They don’t care about “public” schools. If they had their druthers they would exclude the public completely.
We let this happen. We deferred way too much to these people and led them to believe we need them.
How are any of these orgs and people credible anyway?
“Thousands of pages of internal memos and confidential correspondence between Brookings and other donors — like JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s largest bank; K.K.R., the global investment firm; Microsoft, the software giant; and Hitachi, the Japanese conglomerate — show that financial support often came with assurances from Brookings that it would provide “donation benefits,” including setting up events featuring corporate executives with government officials, according to documents obtained by The New York Times and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting.”
Some of these people are on two or three payrolls at the same time.
When John Fallon gets shown the door as Peason CEO, which may be soon, he can thank his good buddy, Sir Michael Barber. Barber has been hocking this world vision for years. I call it Global Core. Barber’s just another McKinsey hack who never built one thing on their
World productivity would be increased, if people, in ed. reform and the financial sector, which are industries that are unproductive and drag down GDP, had their jobs eliminated.
Lindahl’s forthcoming article in American Economic Journal, “Fighting Corruption in Education: What Works and Who Benefits” “(Study of )…Romania… high-stakes high school exit exam…(campaign of television monitoring) and credible punishment for teachers and students (to prevent fraud)…(conclusion) monitoring increased the effectiveness of the punishment threats…curbing corruption led to a reduced chance of (economically) poor students, entering elite universities.”
I could comment…
Bohlmark’s April 20, 2016 paper, “Study of School Segregation in Sweden after 1992 Universal Voucher Reform…” My take away, Sweden’s schools are more segregated after choice was introduced. The research concludes that Sweden’s schools remain less segregated, than schools in other nations.