I have found a sensible person writing about school “reform.” His name is Martin Levine and he writes for the Nonprofit Quarterly. Thus far, everything he has written shows a depth of common sense and wisdom that is utterly lacking among the “reformers,” especially the billionaire reformers. He must have gone to public school, unlike those user-wealthy philanthropists who have decided that they can remake American education to fit their own ideology (though never to provide urban kids the same quality of education that the philanthropists enjoyed as children). I see from his bio that he is a graduate of City College of New York, a public institution of higher education, so he is certainly a public school graduate.
Levine’s latest article ponders the failure of “reform” in Detroit. Poor Detroit has been a playground for the meddlesome and clueless rich. But Levine does not describe the collapse of the Education Achievement Authority or of Eli Broad’s failed interventions into Detroit education or DeVos’s endorsement of charters, both for-profit and nonprofit. That will wait for the next chronicler of Detroit’s fate.
Having the ability to invest billions is not enough to guarantee success. That’s one of the lessons a growing list of mega-donors and large foundations is learning from their efforts to transform and improve public education. In many cases, the initiatives they have launched have been more disruptive than effective. Missing from much of their work has been a recognition of the need to work with families and communities and a willingness to engage in the often-messy work of building success from the bottom up.
At the end of June, the multi-year, multimillion-dollar Excellent Schools Detroit announced it was quietly going out of business after seven years of trying to improve the schools of their home city. According to Bridge Michigan, “Excellent Schools Detroit began as a coalition to support the opening of good schools, the closure of underperformers and to grade the city’s traditional, charter and private schools to help inform parents…Excellent Schools Detroit received funding from numerous foundations, including Skillman, The Kresge Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the McGregor Fund.”
He goes on to briefly touch on the Reverse Midas touch of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Whatever they have touched in education has blown up. Unfortunately, they refuse to address the root causes of low performance. Until they do, they will continue to experience failure.

As a public school graduate from Detroit, I can say that they have not addressed the root cause of failure for DPS. The root cause is embedded in the nepotism, fraud, greed, implicit bias and systemic racism that is rampant in Detroit.
First, the loss of jobs along with the segregation in Detroit must be addressed. Next,would be providing mental health and substance abuse counseling because the drug culture has wiped out at least a generation of families.
Going forth, the systemic racism and I classism needs to be addressed with those issues being brought to the forefront. This whole idea of segregation, racism and classism is a continuation of 1960’s Riots that did not address the social issues that were going on. They only masked them and swept them under the rug along with White flight out of the city.
When these root causes are resolved then you will see an increase in student achievement.
LikeLike
Karen,
Agreed. The deindustrialization of Detroit and the high level of segregation have damaged Detroit’s children and its schools. The answers are available but beyond the reach of teachers.
LikeLike
Thank you, Karen B.
LikeLike
What is the assumed root causes of low performances in schools Mr. Levine?
It appears Karen’s response answers a good chunk of the problem!
What would say Mr. Levine?
LikeLike
Detroit public schools are not failures. Testing and privatization are failures. Actually, Detroit public schools have performed a small miracle just surviving DeVos and Broad, and the rest of the billionaires attacking from their mansions. Detroit public schools are still here, providing for the public even without all the resources that have been systematically hijacked. They are still here! That is something. As far as “increasing student achievement” is concerned, that means raising scores on poorly conceived and constructed standardized tests which measure parent income level, not knowledge or ability.
No, no, public schools are a bulwark against segregation and inequality. Public schools are achieving and are a great achievement. Plutocratic “school reform” is an immense failure.
LikeLike
“that means raising scores on poorly conceived and constructed standardized tests which measure parent income level,”
You gotta know this is coming LCT! And thanks for the opening! We’ve got to quit using the false meme of “measurement” in discussing the teaching and learning process. NO, those tests do not “measure” parent income level. They correlate to a degree most closely with the mother’s education level which in turn correlates with parent income level.
They measure nothing! Literally nothing. The tests are not measuring devices. They supposedly help us evaluate, assess and/or appraise how a particular student interacted with a particular test at a particular time and place, nothing more. And that assessment device, the standardized test is a piss poor method to do so.
The TESTS MEASURE NOTHING, quite literally when you realize what is actually happening with them. Richard Phelps, a staunch standardized test proponent (he has written at least two books defending the standardized testing malpractices) in the introduction to “Correcting Fallacies About Educational and Psychological Testing” unwittingly lets the cat out of the bag with this statement:
“Physical tests, such as those conducted by engineers, can be standardized, of course [why of course of course], but in this volume , we focus on the measurement of latent (i.e., nonobservable) mental, and not physical, traits.” [my addition]
Notice how he is trying to assert by proximity that educational standardized testing and the testing done by engineers are basically the same, in other words a “truly scientific endeavor”. The same by proximity is not a good rhetorical/debating technique.
Since there is no agreement on a standard unit of learning, there is no exemplar of that standard unit and there is no measuring device calibrated against said non-existent standard unit, how is it possible to “measure the nonobservable”?
THE TESTS MEASURE NOTHING for how is it possible to “measure” the nonobservable with a non-existing measuring device that is not calibrated against a non-existing standard unit of learning?????
PURE LOGICAL INSANITY!
The basic fallacy of this is the confusing and conflating metrological (metrology is the scientific study of measurement) measuring and measuring that connotes assessing, evaluating and judging. The two meanings are not the same and confusing and conflating them is a very easy way to make it appear that standards and standardized testing are “scientific endeavors”-objective and not subjective like assessing, evaluating and judging.
Those supposedly objective results are used to justify discrimination against many students for their life circumstances and inherent intellectual traits.
LikeLike
The tests — I will except the NAEP — measure NOTHING! I agree.
LikeLike
NAEP is not special. It suffers the same inherent errors and falsehoods that all standardized for students do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NAEP has one advantage over other standardized tests. There are no reports for individual students or classes or schools. NAEP cannot be used for rewards or punishments. No single student takes an entire NAEP test.
LikeLike
I understand. But there is a fundamental problem in using those NAEP scores for anything, especially the comparisons that come of the process.
Is not the purpose of NAEP to test/assess/evaluate a student’s abilities in certain subject areas?
If no, then what is the purpose?
If yes, then the results of the test can only be used to describe the interaction of the student on that test on a particular day at a particular time and nothing else. This is one of the fundamental flaws of not only standardized testing, but all testing. As an assessment device the results can only be used as a statement on that interaction. To make a statement about what those results may mean in relation to other students’s results is a fundamental logical error.
And that fundamental error is so embedded in the grading/testing/ranking and sorting of students that very few even understand the seriousness of that logical flaw. Now many claim that all sorts of conclusions can be drawn from the “data” but those conclusions are falsely interpreted as something more than the results can logically be used for.
I understand your stake in NAEP’s beginnings, Diane, but NAEP still suffers all the fundamental conceptual errors that plague all standardized tests. I believe that you’ve used the example before of “the fifth grade math test is designed to test a fifth graders math abilities and should not be used for judge teachers (rightly so)”. Using the data from NAEP for anything other than saying what a student has done is no different.
LikeLike
Duane,
NAEP is an audit test and nothing more. It cannot be used to evaluate students or teachers or schools. It is a snapshot of states and some cities. It measures the standing of different groups and achievement gaps.
I was not there at the beginning. I was put on the board by Bill Clinton in 2000 and served for seven years.
The virtue of NAEP is that it provides all the information we need without testing every child every year.
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification of your role! I gladly stand corrected.
Besides my usual beef about using the term “measures”, I don’t understand how the NAEP “measures the standing of different groups and achievement gaps” (whatever “achievement gap” means. If you could explain that it might be helpful).
Who takes NAEP? Students. It is a standardized test, right? What is each test for each level designed to evaluate? Who/what does the scoring? How can an agglomrration of student test scores give any legitimate information other than a very broad and unrefined statement on “this school has these scores and that school has these scores” etc. . . ?
You see, this focus on output indicators (certainly not measures) belies the differences in input resources. Does the NAEP identify all the differences in input resources? For without that information, the output of student test scores means absolutely nothing, indeed nothing.
LikeLike
Please explain what “all the information we need” is?
I am not trying to be facetious or obnoxious with my questioning, you already know my positions on standardized testing. What I seek is to get at what the supporters of these test understand to be the benefits (so I can more adequately destroy the arguments for testing-LOL!
LikeLike
“Since there is no standard unit of learning…” Is this what education people have been trying to attain with such things as “behavioral objectives” or “standards”?
I have always felt that the biggest problem we have in education is that we are taught to have very specific learning expectations. Contrary to that practice, good teaching often means being vague about what you are teaching and allowing for tangential discussion and reading. Being a good student often means going down a rabbit hole looking for something that drives your mind to distraction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Roy,
There is a huge difference in curriculum objectives and “learning standards”. And it has to do with the fundamental difference of what a standard is, how it is promulgated/developed and then how that standard is assessed, depending if it is a documentary standard which as the assessing qualifications as part of the standard, think most ISO standards or if it is a metrological standard which are the standards used in measurement and have A standard/exemplar of the unit of measurement against which all the measuring devices of said measurement are calibrated.
I believe that the way the terms standards and measure are used in the teaching and learning process is meant to give a false sheen of objectivity to an assessment activity that is by definition subjective to begin with and can never be “scientized”, that is made to be scientifically, verifiably objective.
Curriculum objectives on the other hand are not and never have been claimed to be objective but are deeply subjective in nature. And that subjectivity is what lends depth to the teaching and learning process in using curriculum objectives.
Curriculum standards that are supposedly measurable are neither standards nor measures but a misuse and abuse of and a bastardization of the terms serving to obfuscate the true intentions in using them of discriminating against some students while rewarding others.
Come to think of it now, I just realized that the ranking and sorting, the castigating/shaming and rewarding of some students is an outgrowth of Skinnerian behavioural conditioning. That conditioning is great for training animals and people to kill other people but should have no place in public schools in our democratic society.
LikeLike
And I agree with your second paragraph! YES!
Learning by objectives is what it was called in the 60s and 70s. It was also known as mastery learning or outcome based education in the 80s. Most rejected those for the boring, low level training they were.
Currently those ludicrous and risible practices are making a come back in “personalized learning”, “21st century computer learning” and/or “Competency Based Education”. All the same as before with just prettier packaging and slicker computer graphics and error filled old fashion based worksheets on the screen.
No time for looking glass time!
LikeLike
WordPress your intelligence in determining which of my comments go in moderation is unassailably incomprehensible. I give up, you win!
LikeLike
Duane,
I don’t understand either why some of your comments go to moderation while others do not.
I went to the movies tonight and saw Dunkirk. I had high expectations. I was very disappointed. It was all violence and death. No narrative. No character development. Ugh!
As soon as I got home, I removed your comment from moderation.
LikeLike
Thanks for the movie review. It seems that blood, gore and guts is what sells movies these days, and has for quite a while, decades.
I know that the moderation problem has been ongoing and must be as frustrating for you as it is for those of us to whom it happens. I know you get to them as soon as possible. It just makes more unnecessary work for you. I’ve come to take it with a bit of humor which is what I meant by the comment I made. Normally, I believe myself to be pretty good at figuring things like that out, but I haven’t spotted a pattern that has made sense. Oh well, some things in life are unexplainable, eh!
LikeLike
Duane,
It is worse than you imagine. Some comments end up in spam for no reason. If I don’t catch them and restore them, the writer gets banned forever. I have spent many hours trying to rectify the situation of people who were banned from receiving posts or commenting. For a while, I tried scanning Spam, but there is so much spam that it was hopeless and I stopped doing that.
LikeLike
Wow! I wish I could help somehow, but I have no idea what can be done. You might make a post about the problems you have and someone a lot more versed in IT than you and I might help.
LikeLike
I was really going to chuckle if my last comment went into moderation, but alas, it didn’t!
LikeLike
Duane: thanks for all the feedback.
Diane: thanks for the tip.on Dunkirk. I had hoped for a Private Ryan sort of movie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome, Roy!
I seek only to clarify my thoughts (and others also) with what I write and attempt to keep a “fidelity to truth” attitude/mindset/frame of mind in that thinking and writing.
I should have copies of my book next week, so if you are interested let me know. I’ll say something on one of my posts when I get them. There’s another one trying to get out of my cranium and I’m holding it back until I get this one printed. Something like “Ramblings on Teaching and Learning” will be the title. Hell, I’ve got to have something to do with my time and to take my mind away from this stupid body which seems to be rebelling-commie bastard that it is!
LikeLike
The Billionaires who think they have the answers to high school redesign are planning a big splash in early September.
Premise: “While technology and society have rocketed forward, high school has used the same model since 1900. We can’t prepare our nation’s students for the 21st century with this outmoded system. Let’s rethink high school.”
On September 8, 2017, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox New will be marketing the Emerson Collective’s “XQ: The Super School Project,” at 8 pm (7pm Central)
“XQ: The Super School Project was launched in September 2015 as an open call to rethink and design the next American high school. Thousands of school builders, and tens of thousands of supporters from towns and cities across all 50 states united to take on this important work. Nearly 4,000 teams of students, teachers, parents, community leaders and many more came together to conceptualize innovative models for 21st century learning. To date, XQ has pledged more than $100 million to a growing number of the most promising ideas, actively supporting these teams on their journeys to become Super Schools.” Here are some of the leaders of the project.
Laurene Powell Jobs. Chairs XQ’s board of directors, President of Emerson Collective. “Her two decades in the education field have convinced her that America is ready for a sea change to overhaul the system.” Widow of Steve Jobs.
Russlynn Ali, Chief Executive Officer. Former assistant secretary of civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education. Also serves as managing director of education at Emerson Collective.
Alexandra Berry, Chief of Staff. Designed professional development products for teachers at Amplify, Instructional faculty and operations team at Relay Graduate School of Education. Teach for America, middle school math learning specialist at Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) in Houston, Texas.
Matt Lorin, President: Former Executive Director of Honolulu-based, The Learning Coalition. Experience in philanthropy and civic engagement in public education.
Monica Martinez. Senior School Support Strategist. Expert in school redesign, policy, and philanthropy. Senior Fellow to the Hewlett Foundation, President of New Tech Network, VP of KnowledgeWorks Foundation, an associate at the Institute for Educational Leadership.
Dr. Linda Murray, Superintendent–in–Residence. Former senior advisor to the Education Trust-West and Superintendent of Schools for the San Jose Unified School District. Advises XQ on practice work …to help all students in XQ high schools reach college and career ready goals.
Sebastian Turner, Special Projects Lead: Worked as a personnel management consultant for Fortune 500 companies, human capital consultant and talent recruiter for charter management organizations. Former elementary school teacher.
Deep collaborators ( role not clear) include:
Yo-Yo Ma, the globally accomplished musician and creator;
Marc Ecko, Chief Brand and Creative Officer of COMPLEX, youth and justice advocate;
Geoffrey Canada, education advocate, founder of the Harlem Children’s Zone;
Michael Klein, global strategic and financial adviser and Managing Partner of M Klein,
Leon Wieseltier, Isaiah Berlin Senior Fellow in Culture and Policy at the Brookings Institution, listed as the philosopher for the Emerson Collective.
More information about the high school project go to https://xqsuperschool.org
For more about the people and projects of the Emerson Collective go to http://www.emersoncollective.com/our-team/
My generation would label many of these efforts variants of the 1960s alternative school movement with a lot more tech. I hope that someone or some group (other than the promoters) will track the longevity of these school, transformations, and what happens when the grant money and glow of publicity fades. Notice how some of the recruits to lead the project are “formers”… of TFA, of Relay (not) Graduate School of Education, the Education Trust, and active in pushing tech. ALmost forgot: Arne Duncan is a Partner in the Emerson Collective.
LikeLike
I wonder if Laurene or anyone else involved in XQ has read about the history of American education. As you say, they may be simply reviving ideas that have been tried (and may have failed) before.
LikeLike
I wonder if Laurene is critical and disgusted with the education her own children received in their private school. Because if she was willing to pay what likely amounted to many hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years — as well as donate additional funds — then why does she feel the need to spend alot of money looking for a re-design. Why not just offer THAT to all children?
Or does she really mean “high school design in which other people’s children could learn whatever they can learn without spending even half of what my own child’s school spends on their education”?
LikeLike
Such a good point. We should find the name of her kids’ school and attend all her public appearances with “________ for all!” signs.
LikeLike
Billionaires have been arrogant and short-sighted in their “reform” efforts. They have imposed their views, vilified teachers and acted as though “reform” is something you do to people, not with them.
Billionaires have led with false assumptions. They believe the market is a problem solver. Not only does it not solve problems, it creates a whole host of new ones including winners, losers and increased segregation. Reformsters have declared war on teachers and their unions. They are not the problem; they are the ones that are trying to hold everything together under unbelievably difficult circumstances. Parts of the country that have unions get better results than those than do not. Unions are not the problem; they are a convenient target. Another fallacy is that metrics improve outcomes. They do not. The “reformers” have impose a whole host of measurement systems based on false assumptions with punitive consequences. Threatening people does not build a team, and a team is needed to make an impact.
Billionaires have played dirty in their war against public schools. They have created a climate mistrust and blame in many school systems. You cannot fire your way to success in education. The wealthy have used their resources to destroy, not improve, public schools because most billionaires want to impose privatization our young people. They have suppressed democracy, bought politicians and destroyed teaching careers, but they have not met with success.
“Reform” is in the ‘Twilight Zone’ under DeVos and Trump. Results are meaningless, and blatant failures, waste and fraud in charters are ignored as long as we have “choice.” It makes no sense, but here we are.
Change is hard, and it has to start from the bottom up. It involves inclusion of the stakeholders, not exclusion. Unless people are willing to deal with the social, emotional impact of poverty and work with poor families to help them provide more stability for their children, the outcomes will never be different. Unless our government has some level of respect for those that are experts in education and are willing to listen to them, improvement will not happen. Unless we expect to approach public education from some level of equity, we will be stuck with the status quo.
LikeLike
retired teacher,
You hit the nail on the head again!
LikeLike
Yet again I feel the need to point out that what the billionaires have been experiencing has not been failure. At least, not in their eyes. It would only be failure if their intent was actually to improve education. Since it’s not, they haven’t failed. In fact, they’ve succeeded all the way to the bank, laughing all the way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this is the deepest truth: profit, any kind of profit — even if it is only a small profit, or a short-lived profit — is truly the policy/action decider.
LikeLike
I would like to challenge DeVos, Gates, Broad, the Waltons and other billionaire reformers to donate an amount equal to that which they have spent lobbying for “choice” in just the past 3 years to the public school systems in Detroit, LA, Chicago and NY. I will bet that, left alone for 5 years with sufficient funds, educators could give those students in “failing schools” the education they deserve.
If the “reformers” wouldn’t cough up enough for entire public school systems, they might give enough for each district to have universal pre-K, community services, and vocational / technical schools. What about daring them to just cut class sizes to a maximum of 15 in schools they would close before damning them as “dead ends.”
LikeLike
Instead of reducing class size, I’d rather have two teachers per classroom. One could do one-on-one instruction or planning or grading or classroom management. A second talented adult in the room would be powerful.
LikeLike