In his retirement, John Merrow has turned into a tiger, pulling apart the frauds that are regularly reported by the mainstream media.
In this marvelous post, he punctures the great hot air balloon of “reform” in the District of Columbia under Michelle Rhee and Kaya Henderson.
It begins like this:
The current issue of The Washington Monthly contains an article by former journalist Thomas Toch, “Hot for Teachers,” the latest in continuing string of pieces designed to prove the “truth” of the school reform movement’s four Commandments: top-down management, high stakes testing, more money for teachers and principals whose students do well, and dismissal for those whose students do not.
Just as a hot air balloon needs regular burst of hot air to remain afloat, the DCPS ‘success story’ needs constant celebrations of its alleged success. Sadly, it has had no trouble finding agents willing to praise Michelle Rhee, Kaya Henderson, and their work. Absent good data, Toch, former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, philanthropist Catherine Bradley, Mike Petrilli of Fordham, Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, and writers Richard Whitmire and Amanda Ripley have lavished praise upon DCPS, often twisting or distorting data and omitting damaging information in order to make their case.
In his article, Toch distorts or omits at least eight issues. The distinguished education analyst Mary Levy and I have written a rebuttal, which is scheduled to appear in the next issue of The Washington Monthly. In this blog post, I want to consider in detail just one of Toch’s distortions: widespread cheating by adults: He glibly dismisses DC’s cheating scandals in just two sentences: In March 2011, USA Today ran a front-page story headlined “When Standardized Test Scores Soared in D.C., Were the Gains Real?,” an examination of suspected Rhee-era cheating. The problem turned out to be concentrated in a few schools, and investigations found no evidence of widespread cheating.
There are two factual errors in his second sentence. Cheating–erasing wrong answers and replacing them with correct ones–occurred in more than half of DCPS schools, and every ‘investigation’ was either controlled by Rhee and later Henderson or conducted by inept investigators–and sometimes both. All five investigations were whitewashes, because no one in power wanted to unmask the wrongdoing that had produced the remarkable test score gains.
Four essential background points: The rookie Chancellor met one-on-one with all her principals and, in those meetings, made them guarantee test score increases. We filmed a number of these sessions, and saw firsthand how Rhee relentlessly negotiated the numbers up, while also making it clear that failing to ‘make the numbers’ would have consequences.
Point number two: The test in question, the DC-CAS, had no consequences for students, none whatsoever. Therefore, many kids were inclined to blow it off, which in turn forced teachers and principals to go to weird extremes to try to get students to take the test seriously. One principal told his students that he would get a tattoo of their choice if they did well on the DC-CAS (They could choose the design; he would choose the location!).
Point number three: For reasons of bureaucratic efficiency, the DC-CAS exams were delivered to schools at least a week before the exam date and put in the hands of the principals whose jobs depended on raising scores on a test the kids didn’t care about. This was a temptation that some school leaders and some teachers found irresistible. Test books were opened, sample questions were distributed, and, after the exams, answers were changed. Some schools had ‘erasure parties,’ we were reliably told.
Point number four: Predictably, test scores went up, and the victory parties began.
Contrary to Toch’s assertions, the ‘wrong-to-right’ erasures in half of DCPS schools were never thoroughly investigated beyond the initial analysis done by the agency that corrected the exams in the first place, CTB/McGraw-Hill. Deep erasure analysis would have revealed any patterns of erasures, but it was never ordered by Chancellor Rhee, Deputy Chancellor Henderson, or the Mayor, presuming he was aware of the issue.
Merrow followed Rhee closely for years. No journalist knows her methods better than he. It took a long time for him to figure out that the balloon was full of hot air, but figure it out he did.

Rhee had and still has an excessive volume of bloating, flatulent, explosive, polluting Methane Gas – not hot air.
LikeLike
Watch Merrow on MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Show debunking Rhee:
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/all-in-/51523921?ocid=twitter#51523921
(NOTE: Rhee was invited to appear on the same show, or later in a solo interview with Hayes, and she refused both offers. Yeah, I would refuse, too, if I were her.)
LikeLike
More reasons to despise Betsy DeVos:
Betsy DeVos Invested In Military Tech Contractor Run By Son-In-Law, While Brother Shaped Afghan War Policy
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/betsy-devos-invested-military-tech-contractor-run-son-law-while-brother-shaped
LikeLike
Ed, I posted that story a few days ago.
LikeLike
Holes are routinely punched in the reform narrative. It’s not a heavy lift to do so. Any of the broad philosophical attacks on the notion of privatizing the commons are a sufficient starting point. Our problem isn’t for lack of arguments. Christ, we are totally on the right side of this after all!
Our problem isnt the arguments…..it’s the lack of broad narrative that resonates and connects those arguments to popular and political support. As yet that hasn’t happened, for various reasons. Yes our side is facing a juggernaut of corporate, financialized money. That’s always the background. However, the usual medium for broad messaging on this would have been the teachers unions. That has failed and it failed from day 1. Beyond that, our side is organizationally confused, befuddled, and incompetent. We can’t budge out of our thinking that cataloging the wrongs of the reform movement will somehow, one day, convince everyone our side is virtuous. It won’t. We cannot seem to grasp that being right doesn’t count for much in a political environment. We are right. We have all the most sustained, correct arguments. We are also losing….and not just a little. We are nearly defeated. Some days I can’t tell if we are completely defeated or just on the precipice of total defeat.
I’m not sure our side can win without the unions. The unions for the most part are hopeless and hopelessly led. We must somehow get a foothold on a counter-narrative to reform. Being right isn’t a counter-narrative. Blogging good arguments on inside-baseball blogs is not a counter-narrative. Cataloging the wrongs and failures of the reform movement and privatizers is not a counter-narrative. Those things are the inventory we have…and it’s a good inventory. We just need to sell it. At this point, unlocking the front door and putting up an “open” sign would be a big step for us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“. . . it’s the lack of broad narrative that resonates and connects those arguments to popular and political support.”
That broad narrative has to start with outlining the fundamental purpose of public education and then constantly incorporating that purpose into our narratives. That purpose should be the anchor point of all discussions.
Having reviewed all of the 50 states’ constitutional rationales for public education, I came up with the following rationale as that basis on which every education policy and practice should be judged. Does a new policy or practice (or even longstanding practices) fulfill the purpose or does it contradict that purpose. If it is shown to contradict the purpose then the policy or practice should be immediately discarded/discontinued. From Ch. 1 of my book:
Chapter 1
The Purpose of Public Education
‘Honesty is the first chapter in wisdom’ Jefferson
What is that fundamental purpose and where can it usually be found? Is there even a fundamental purpose? To answer the last question first, it depends! Well, what does it depend on then? In answering that question we also answer the where question—the constitution of each state.
But there’s a catch, not every state constitution gives a purpose for its authorization of public education. It’s a 50/50 split with 25 states not giving any purpose such as West Virginia’s authorization “The Legislature shall provide, by general law, for a thorough and efficient system of free schools.” (Article XII, Sec. 12-1) and 25 states providing a rationale.
Those 25 rationales can be divided into three types. Those that declare that the purpose of public education is to ensure that the state’s form of government will continue, such as South Dakota’s “The stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools. . . .” (Article VIII § 1). Those whose fundamental purpose focuses on the individual and his/her rights such as Missouri’s “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools . . . .” (Article IX Sec. 1a) And those that are a combination of both. As it is, fifteen mainly focus on the benefits of public education to the individual citizen and the preservation of his/her rights, five on the benefit to the state and five that state both citizen and government benefits.
All together then, there are 25 states with no stated fundamental purpose, five with a purpose that extol the benefits of public education to the state, fifteen commending the benefits to the individual and five a combination of benefit to both state and individual, resulting in 80% of those with a stated purpose of having the benefits for the individual as the primary rationale. Is it possible, then, to discern a fundamental purpose of public education? Yes, I believe it can be ascertained, by starting with the fundamental purpose of government in this country as stated in each state’s constitution (sometimes as troublesome to recognize a stated purpose as that of public education). Since public education is a function of each state and not the federal government we must begin at the state level to determine what the fundamental purpose of the state is. In examining the constitutions one finds that there many and varied exhortations.
For example, Alabama’s Constitution states: “Objective of government. That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.” (Section 35) Or this from Nebraska “All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Art. I, sec. 1)
All well and good, eh! Quite compelling is the Missouri constitution’s wording on the purpose of government: “That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.” (Article. II, Sec. 4. § 3.)
Tying together the aims of our constitutional government with the purpose of public education as stated in some of the state’s constitution allows us to propose a common fundamental statement of purpose. Since 20 of the 25 state constitutions give a reason attending to the rights and liberties of the individual through public education combined with the mandate of state constitutional government as reflected in Missouri’s constitutional language of “That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry. . .” it follows that the rights and liberties of the individual in being educated as each sees fit supersede those of supporting and maintaining the government. And that one can logically conclude that if the educational wants and needs of the citizens obtain then those of the state will follow. But without an educated citizenry who can promote their own interests, and who can understand and tolerate others thoughts, opinions and desires, the state would surely be subject to tyranny by those whose knowledge and wants exceeds most.
I propose, then, the following statement of the purpose of public education with which, hopefully, most in the United States could agree:
“The purpose of public education is to promote the welfare of the individual so that each person may savor the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the fruits of their own industry.”
Any educational practice that is shown to hinder, block and/or otherwise cause an individual to not be able to indulge in any of aspect of his/her rights as stated has to be considered as harmful and unjust not only to the individual but also to society and therefore must rightly be condemned as educational malpractice and ought to be immediately discontinued. Trampled rights are rights that are non-existent and the educational malpractice that tramples any right is unjust and as noted in Alabama’s constitution “is usurpation and oppression” and as Missouri’s declares “. . . when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.”
I contend that many of today’s federal and state mandates and even long standing educational practices are, indeed, malpractices that trample the rights of the most innocent in society, the children, the students of all ages attending public schools, in essence “it [public education] fails in its chief design.” Should the government through the public schools be sorting, separating, ranking, and/or grading students through logically bankrupt invalid practices discriminating against some while rewarding others? I contend it should not! Where is the justice in discriminatory practices? By evaluating those malpractices against the aforementioned purpose we will be able to ascertain whether or not they are just.
LikeLike
I understand your frustration. The dissonance of being right, yet being unable to disseminate information to a wider audience. The forces opposing public education are billionaires that have access to the media and a good percentage of the politicians through campaign donations. As you have stated the unions have spent too much time trying to appear conciliatory. We do have bloggers and activists like NPE or BATS working hard to blow up the privatizers’ lies and false assertions. Cross posting legitimate information on other social media sites is helpful. I have done this for some time. I used to have many people praise charters and challenge my statements. The tide is turning with more supporters of public education speaking out. There is most definitely more opposition to charters, and more people seem to understand that “choice” is really about privatization. However, the privatization train continues to steamroll forward
LikeLike
We preach to the choir in our echo chambers. The percentage of public school teachers who are totally clueless is astounding. I, for one, have tired of attempting to inform them. A common response is, “Why do you know so much?” And the reason is because I read a lot. It is totally pathetic.
LikeLike
Heard very similar thoughts by many an ignorant public school teacher, Abigail. And as you suggest, there was a very negative tone in their voices, one of disdain for telling them the way things really are and not how their feeble brains accepted the false narratives. Very sad indeed!
LikeLike
hear, hear
LikeLike
One can never reiterate, restate and keep pointing out the utter falsehoods that the edudeformers attempt to foist upon this country.
LikeLike
Agree. Not suggesting we stop! We just need to connect it to a popular narrative that resonates politically.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said: an added flood of PRO-PUBLIC PRO-TEACHER narrative needed.
LikeLike
I’m just going to post the Atlanta cheating scandal report again:
http://www.creativeloafing.com/news/article/13061313/heres-the-states-full-report-about-the-atlanta-schools-cheating-scandal
Read it. It’s like a narrative of the absolute worst variety of ed reform.
It’s heart breaking in a way, because MOST of these people had good intentions. They were caught in this crazy idea and the y couldn’t get out.
I still think it’s a shame the underlying problems with ed reform leadership and theory were never examined.
They paraded the teachers past crowds on a perp walk, everyone took a bow that people had been “held accountable” and none of the geniuses behind it were ever held accountable.
This was a management theory and it came from the tippy-top of ed reform yet none of THEM were held accountable- only front line employees.
LikeLike
Atlanta brought in a superintendent with the same views as Hall
LikeLike
That report should have been required reading at every ed reform get-together and convention.
What this management system did to those teachers should be a crime. The craziness when the teachers were able to show gains and they were not praised or supported but instead shamed to the point were one of them climbed under a table at a “data review” should have caused some introspection in the data crowd, but I doubt any of them read it.
Instead they paraded the teachers in front of cameras and held those ridiculous trials and then installed a new group of ed reformers who have the exact same theories as the old group.
Why weren’t the Harvard economists who cooked up this garbage ever held accountable? They’re all still employed and we’re all still following their theories.
LikeLike
“They were caught in this crazy idea and the y couldn’t get out.”
Hmmm. . . no they weren’t “caught in this crazy idea” and yes, they could have gotten out. They chose not to. They were as complicit as those demanding the implementation of these malpractices. They chose to follow the path of personal expediency over proper teaching and justice for the students. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. Classic GAGA Good Germans whose behavior got themselves caught up in a giant web of deceit. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
LikeLike
It gets discouraging- the talking points and the lack of any real debate.
I listened to several members of the US Congress last week. They all repeat “skills gap” like a mantra, like it’s some “truth” that was handed down on scrolls, and the “skills gap” theory is probably WRONG.
They don’t care. The talking points fit the narrative they like so they all repeat the same things- down to specific words and phrases.
Once these things take hold you can’t dent the “truth” of them. They’re set in stone forever and ever.
LikeLike
Jennifer Berkshire has a great piece on how really barren the ed reform “debate” is.
http://www.alternet.org/education/betsy-devos-queen-obfuscation-talking-nonsense
This is an example:
“Melvin: But if there’s only one pot of money, aren’t traditional public schools always end up getting shortchanged to some extent?
DeVos: Great public schools are going to continue to do a great job for the students that they’re serving. I think instead of talking about schools and school buildings we should be talking about funding students and investing in individual students.”
Over and over and over and over. No real answer to the question- just carefully crafted choice cheerleading. No downside! Only upside! Hearts and flowers and unicorns!
When Common Core came out in Ohio I did quite a bit of reading on what the children were expected to show on the tests. I had a 6th grader in public schools and I was curious what he would have to do. It’s really quite demanding- they’re expected to make an argument or observation and back it up. I agree with that! I want him to learn that!
But Betsy DeVos sure doesn’t do it. She wouldn’t pass a middle school Common Core test with this stuff. It’s junk. It’s a recitation of ideology. Nothing whatever to do with real public schools and the real issues her “choice” agenda raises.
LikeLike
How convenient, John Merrow.
This post illustrates that money trumps journalistic objectivity. When Merrow had the national bully pulpit he had to toe the privatizer party line but now that he doesn’t depend upon them for his salary, he can cautiously approach the truth. The kind of abuse teachers face and have faced might have been slowed or stopped if he had told the truth, but then he would have been fired. Better to lose thousands of career teachers than to give up his own cushy job. He is as much to blame for the manufactured teacher shortage as AFT, NEA and the privatizers.
LikeLike
Great comment Michael P. Dominguez!
LikeLike
De acuerdo.
LikeLike
Exactly, Michael!
Merrow elevated Rhee to the national stage for a long while before he repudiated her cheating ways. Many teachers and students suffered at her hands.
LikeLike
Thank you, Michael.
The question for me then becomes, “Was Merrow’s hypocrisy and lack of integrity the result of opportunistic careerism, or the result of dictates from GBS (Gates Broadcasting System)?
Or both?
LikeLike
There’s no doubt that public schools need a new PR slogan but to expect the Democratic Party or the Unions to develop a viable counter narrative with a coherent strategy is like waiting for Godot. Maybe I’m too optimistic & reading too much into these articles, but there are fault lines in the privatization narrative that concurrently discredits its cheerleaders.
The broader narrative at the core of edu-reform is private enterprise is, by nature, innovative and government interference stifles its inherent, creative inclinations. The 2008 Wall St crash flipped that on its head. Emerging in a younger, counter culture was nature had nothing to do with bank fraud & that innovation produced legalized theft. This theme never completely disappeared after Occupy Wall St. as the world now understands ‘We are the 99%’ whereas captured politicians and a venal, corrupt financial industry are the 1%.
If it’s any comfort, there are dents in the vacuous worldview that made public policy experts out of Silicon Valley and The Business Roundtable. The facts are clear these guys peddle a philosophy that has been catastrophic for ordinary people. Those realities don’t penetrate the walls of a bought & paid for congress. No one except insular insiders think 1%ers brilliance will translate seamlessly into the political system.
One example is an article in Current Affairs “Silicon Valley Won’t Save You”. In it, Tveten & Blest argue that Silicon Valley should not be allowed near any public policy making. Their proposals “would only serve to bilk people of their money for nothing in return will come disguised beneath a thick layer of vacuous, dishonest hype.”
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/silicon-valley-wont-save-you
The other book by Duff McDonald exposes the moral failures of Harvard Business School that has “become a “money machine unto itself”. His critique is scathing. Harvard B-school’s founding doctrine, was to develop “a heightened sense of responsibility among businessmen” (and eventually women) who “will handle their current business problems in socially constructive ways.” Harvard Business School has not only “proven an enormous failure,” but its very success has made it positively “dangerous.”
In this dark time, it’s impossible to see an end point. But these pieces signal a cultural shift. Just 10 years ago no one was questioning the philosophy of the “brilliant” business & tech magnates. “Government is the problem, not the solution” is a dying idea. That alone, is a victory for the 99%.
LikeLike
“Give it your best shot!”
There’s this great moment from the Oscar-winning documentary INSIDE JOB. Columbia School of Business Dean Glenn Hubbard gets surprised with a grilling about his conflict of interest arrangements in the Wall Street private sector.
BACKGROUND: In House and Senate hearings, and in his writings in support of certain legislation, and most prominently, in his role as the chief economic adviser to George Bush, Hubbard espoused the Gospel of Deregulate Everything, which led directly to the 2008 melt-down — all the while employing his academic cred, where he was supposedly an objective source of expertise on these matters.
The problem: Hubbard was on the take the whole time — via payouts for “consulting fee’s” from “consulting clients” that included the usual suspects such as Goldman-Sachs. It was those entities that caused the 2008 meltdown, enabled by Hubbard’s espousing of de-regulation, and Hubbard’s singing the praises of the infamous “credit derivatives” — all with the imprimatur of Hubbard’s academic and supposedly “objective” credentials from the Columbia School of Business.
Charles Ferguson, the interviewer and documentary film-maker knew all about Hubbard’s lucrative “consulting” arrangements, though apparently Hubbard was unaware that Ferguson DID know all about this, and was going to bust Hubbard about this — otherwise Hubbard would likely never have agreed to the interview.
These 30 seconds won Ferguson the 2010 Oscar for Best Documentary.
( 0:19 – )
( 0:19 – )
FERGUSON: “Who ARE your consulting clients?”
HUBBARD: “I don’t believe that I have to discuss that with you.”
FERGUSON: “Okay … uhh.”
HUBBARD: “In fact, you have a few more minutes, and the interview is over.”
FERGUSON: “Do they include other financial services firms?”
HUBBARD: (uncomfortable) “Possibly.”
FERGUSON: (incredulous) “You don’t remember?”
HUBBARD: (irritated) “This isn’t a deposition, Sir. I was polite enough to give you time — foolishly, I now see, but you have three more minutes. Give it your best shot!”
MATT DAMON – Narrator: “In 2007, at the height of The Bubble, Glenn Hubbard co-authored a widely-read paper with William C. Dudley, the Chief Economist with Goldman-Sacks … ”
Here’s a longer cut of the same scene from INSIDE JOB that gives a little more context — it starts earlier in the film and cuts out later — where narrator Matt Damon talks about how the study of economics has been corrupted by money-making arrangements like the one Hubbard engaged in:
LikeLike
If you’re interested, here’s are some more follow-ups on INSIDE JOB.
A PBS segment looks at the issue of academia being corrupted by Wall Street, including an interview with INSIDE JOB director Charles Ferguson:
And here’s Ferguson’s Oscar acceptance speech where he starts out by saying that, “three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud,” NO ONE has yet been prosecuted for all the criminal activity that led to the 2008 meltdown (and no one ever will be) “and that’s wrong.”:
( 2:53 – )
( 2:53 – )
And finally, here’s a DEMOCRACY NOW segment on INSIDE JOB with Ferguson again pointing out how there has been no criminal prosecutions in relation to the 2008 meltdown:
LikeLike
NYU is a real estate development company with a higher education subsidiary, while Harvard and Yale are hedge funds – take a look at how their endowments function if you doubt that – that have the additional purpose of grooming the younger members of the Overclass.
Since our Overclass has largely devolved into a rent-seeking group of parasites feeding off the carcass off working and middle class wealth, and what remains of public goods, it’s to be expected that Harvard’s business school should be a training academy for self-seeking looters and privateers.
LikeLike
And it would appear that the philosophy of Harvard Graduate School of Education has been swallowed up by that of the B school.
I had lunch with a former student of mine who had just finished her Masters at HGSE. She told me that she was furious all the time in grad school because of the indoctrination of “failing urban schools” and “poor teachers”.
Of course, she was AT Harvard due to those same schools and teachers.
LikeLike