Gary Rubenstein has been following the tale of the so-called Achievement School District in Tennessee for a decade. It was started with $100 million of the state’s $500 million from the Race to the Top (remember “Race to the Top”?). The ASD pledged to raise achievement dramatically in the state’s lowest performing schools, and it failed. Several other states were so impressed by the idea of the ASD that they created their own similar efforts. By the state’s own records, none of them was successful.
When Gary saw that veterans of the ASD were convening at a virtual conference to talk about the lessons learned, he decided to join the meeting. He couldn’t believe the claims that were made about the “success” of the failed program. When he finally decided to ask questions of the panelists, he was told that his questions were unacceptable and he was censored. He wondered why the Chalkbeat reporter wasn’t asking the same questions. All it takes is a review of the published stats.
“Reformers” continue to promote the same failed ideas, without concern for easily ascertainable facts.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“The first question was about what they learned and they all talked about how the initial plan was to give the schools autonomy, but when the schools did not improve they realized that the schools had not actually earned their autonomy yet so the state had to take more control. But this goes against the whole charter school philosophy that they need the autonomy and that will motivate them to do well since they know they will lose their charters if they fail to improve.”
90% of ed reform is like this- completely incoherent.
It is truly alarming that these people seek to throw the existing K-12 system in the trash and replace it a privatized system they design. They’re not coherent and consistent even WITHIN one of their experiments.
The most amusing “evolution” of ed reform in Ohio was watching the entire “quality” goals get thrown out the window once the echo chamber all backed vouchers.
Almost overnight “quality” gave way to “choice” – the ideological goals absolutely trumped any educational goals. They’re now in the ridiculous position of promoting a set of publicly funded private schools they don’t regulate or police or measure at all WHILE harshly policing ONLY public schools. Utterly nonsensical.
“When he finally decided to ask questions of the panelists, he was told that his questions were unacceptable and he was censored. He wondered why the Chalkbeat reporter wasn’t asking the same questions. All it takes is a review of the published stats.”
But most education reporters don’t have a clue about how to look at published stats or how to evaluate studies or how to ask questions. They parrot whatever the reformers say about their remarkable success and they embrace the reformers’ analysis of studies as if it must never be questioned.
If the owner of Chalkbeat ran “Sciencebeat”, I wouldn’t be surprised to read numerous stories about the miracle drug hydroxychloroquine and how “studies proved” it cured 99% of the COVID-19 patients who took it. No doubt the NYT would be more “fair and balanced” and after reporting on the miracle of hydroxychloroquine based on those studies, would include the disclaimer that “some doctors who hate drug companies don’t agree” .
So far, education reporting is filled with journalists who have no understanding about how to independently confirm all the claims made by the ed reformers.
and so many, many journalists who STILL don’t grasp that there is a deeper problem than “teacher pay”
One of the most important observations in Gary’s post:
“How can anyone learn from the turnaround efforts in Memphis if they are not honest about some basic facts? It’s like when there is a plane crash, scientists are supposed to examine the wreckage carefully to figure out what happened so that they can prevent something like that from happening again. With this rose colored glasses take on the evolution and success of the ASD, what was the chance of learning anything in this state of denial. This wasn’t ‘Tipping The Scales’ this was ‘Putting Your Thumb On The Scales.’
If ed reform was really about “the kids”, this would be a no-brainer. Of course the one thing you would want is to learn from your efforts.
But ed reform has always been about the adults who make their living pleasing billionaires benefactors whose happiness is much more important to them than the well-being of any children. When it comes to pleasing their billionaire funders versus serving the children, the children are as disposable as their own integrity. In that sense, the ed reformers remind me a lot of Republicans like Elise Stefanik. What matters most to them is their own careers. The ones with even a smidgeon of integrity either walk away or are marginalized the way Romney is.
And yet, education reporters continuing treating them the way Fox News treats Republicans — as upright purveyors of truth who only care about doing the right thing.
A reminder about Chalkbeat like so many ed. publications.
https://www.chalkbeat.org/pages/supporters
You can even read about Chalkbeat’s code of ethics:
Seek independent verification from multiple sources to confirm (or contradict) claims, especially those made by public officials or anyone with an agenda beyond merely reporting the truth.
Work to the best of their ability to assess evidence and claims without bias, always examining ways in which personal experiences and values may shape our reporting.
Apparently, people making exaggerated claims extolling ed reform “success” never need to be independently verified, and the fact that their biggest funders adore those people making exaggerated claims has nothing to do with it. It is purely a coincidence that their claims are not subject to any assessment of evidence.
Which explains why so many Chalkbeat articles extols certain “no-excuses” charter schools for their supposedly extraordinary success, when any public high school that only graduated half the number of 9th graders from 4 years ago would be a failure by every measurement. But no need to assess or look at bias when “very important” people say it’s true.
Thanks, Nancy. That about sums it up.
I know there’s some disappointment with Biden among public school supporters, but I don’t think anyone can dispute Biden’s (proposed) education budget and focus is very different than Obama’s was:
“To that end, the budget proposal calls on Congress to invest nearly $103 billion in Department of Education programs, a 41 percent increase over the fiscal year 2021 appropriation to support students’ success. The fiscal year 2022 request also makes a meaningful down payment toward the Biden-Harris Administration’s goal of reversing inequities. The centerpiece is a proposal for a new $20 billion Title I Equity Grants program that would address disparities between under-resourced schools and their wealthier counterparts, support competitive compensation for teachers in Title I schools, expand access to pre-K, and increase preparation for, access to, and success in rigorous coursework.
Our request would put the Nation on a path to double the number of school counselors, nurses, and mental health professionals in our schools, and significantly expand support for community schools to help increase the availability of wrap-around services to students and families in underserved schools and communities.
We also think it is past time for the Federal Government to make good on its commitment to students with disabilities and their families and the request makes a significant move toward full funding of IDEA, proposing a 20 percent increase for IDEA State grants of $2.6 billion dollars.”
I think Joe Biden will end up being the most pro-public education President of my adult life, which I would not have predicted 🙂
After a 30 year drought it’s nice to see some real, bold support, even if it is only a proposal.
I find Biden an affable and likeable fellow. I can even relate to him. I also came from a blue collar family in Pennsylvania. My grandmother was born in Scranton, and her father was a coal miner.
However, I am disappointed that Biden’s DOE is lined with neo-liberals. Cardona was hand picked by the corporate Democrats. Biden’s proposals are by far the best for public schools in the past forty years. Now it is time for Biden to stand and deliver substantive positive change for public education. If he doesn’t, we must let him know that teachers are holding him to his word.
I haven’t seen any evidence that Cardona was hand picked by the corporate Democrats — I think many of them probably had other candidates they preferred. But you are definitely correct that now is the time for Biden to deliver substantial positive change for public education and if he doesn’t, we should all hold him to his word.
The majority of the selection committee that voted for Dr. Cardona was made up of so-called reformers, and many had connections to Obama and Bill Gates. There was a post about the skewed selection committee on this blog.
Corporate “reformers” always promise the sky before they cut services and give their “customers” a lemon of a deal. The NCLB: All students will be proficient by 2014. ASD: Schools in the bottom 5% will be in the top 25% in five years. Every. Student. Succeeds.
Amazon says it will be carbon neutral by 2040. Google and Ford said self-driving cars would dominate the roads by 2020. Elon Musk says Mars will be colonized by 2050. These are not goals. They are sales pitches.
Student achievement is not a goal among corporate “reformers”. Making claims of goals for future achievement is a marketing technique. Corporations do not make product quality goals. They make profit goals and sales projections. When it comes to actually reforming education, they fail because they do not try. Success is not a goal.
Deformers are ” successful” (in their own way) because America is the land of get rich quick suckers.
All you need to do is yell “Gold! I found gold!” and you will have millions flocking to the stream where you planted the nugget. And then all you need to do is sell them the pans and other supplies needed to “realize” their golden dreams (at wildly inflated prices, of course).
The American Scheme
Gold in the dream
Gold in the stream!
Gold in the seam!
Gold is the scheme
The American Scheme (2)
A promise made
A golden scheme
A barren, empty plot
A pick and spade
And broken dream
Is all we ever got
Ah, SomeDAM! Thank you for a bracing start to this Sunday morning.
The ASD is like the CRT in the previous post. All that is desired here is for the voter to have a focus away from the issues that matter.
If we are discussing something else, we do not have to talk about the obscene wealth accumulating at the feet of the few at the expense of the many and the ruinous effect this is having on the economy and the body politic.
In short, if the CRT did not exist, another bugbear would service magically, like the silly idea that the ASD would work. When an idea fails miserably, it is not important if the public is focused on something else. So these two issues complement each other well. If everyone is writing editorial verbiage on whether we should teach CRT, they are ignoring the highway robbery associated with ASD and similar plans to make big money off public funds for the few.
Once again, I think Gary Rubenstein for his tireless work in exposing nonsense and, indeed, outright fraud.
Second. Gary R. Is awesome.
Thank you Gary!
A sign of everything that is wrong with ed reform movement:
Gary Rubinstein wrote a long and careful article which provided argument and evidence that a reader could easily check. There were 9 comments, none of which challenged his facts.
But Joe Nathan, who sometimes comments here as a proponent of all that is good about charters, replied with the kind of “reasoned and honest argument” that is typical of the entire ed reform movement:
Have you now or even been a teacher at Stuyvesant High School, a public high school in NYC which admits high performing students via an exam?
(To be fair, what Joe Nathan actually replied was “Gary, do you still teach at Stuyvesant High School in NYC?” and then copied and pasted a description of the high school. The ed reformers are ALWAYS willing to provide “strong evidence” of facts that no one has ever contradicted with the same fervor that the McCarthyites asked “are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”. The intention, of course, is to provide innuendo that the person and his work as a scientist or actor or teacher or blogger must be suspect by that association.)
I did love Gary’s reply, which nailed the McCarthyite intent of Joe Nathan’s comment:
“Yes. Does that mean that The TN ASD was effective?”
And if you think that my characterization of the McCarthyite intent of Joe Nathan’s comment was too harsh, Joe Nathan’s response to Gary Rubinstein’s brilliant reply to Nathan asking Gary if he still taught at Stuyvesant says it all:
Gary said: “Does that mean that The TN ASK was effective?”
Joe Nathan’s McCarthyite reply: “Not necessarily.”
“Not NECESSARILY”??!!! Because Joe Nathan wants readers to believe that Gary’s association with Stuyvesant High School MIGHT completely discredit all of the facts but he is being “fair and balanced” and acknowledging that just because it “might”, he cannot say for sure.
The ed reformers have always put their own interests far ahead of any students. The students matter only insofar as their performance allows ed reformers to make outrageous claims about success that directly benefit themselves.
I have noticed here that any discussion of the fact that “successful “charters’ cherry pick students and lie that they teach the same kids as in failing public schools must be met with the McCarthyite attack “public schools have test in magnet schools”. In other words, the very existence of Stuyvesant High School is enough for Joe Nathan to rationalize to himself why he condone the lies of charter schools. Complicit.
What Joe Nathan never writes — because that would involve a level of integrity he has never shown here — is to ask “don’t those specialized high schools like the one you teach at act just as dishonestly as the charters you are criticizing and don’t specialized high schools like Stuyvesant also make exaggerated claims about their success being due to superior teaching and a secret sauce and doesn’t Gary keep writing that Stuyvesant has turned students who would otherwise be failing into high performing scholars and should be financially rewarded for doing so?”
Of course, the answer would be “no”, that Stuyvesant doesn’t do that, nor do public magnet schools, who don’t make outsize claims of “success” that serve only to hurt the most vulnerable students.
That’s what charters do, and Joe Nathan is okay with that, because, well, “Stuyvesant High School”. It exists. That’s why it’s okay for charters not to be honest. Because Stuyvesant High School exists. The fact that the NYC DOE is upfront and honest about what Stuyvesant High School is somehow justifies to Joe Nathan why charter schools should be allowed to lie about what they are.
It’s worth reading the exchange to see for yourself.
Joe Nathan’s “Not necessarily” says it all. In other words, the fact that Gary Rubinstein teaches as Stuyvesant may or may not discredit his entire essay about the misrepresentations about its effectiveness that “The TN ASK” made and Joe Nathan just doesn’t know if it does and just hopes very much that readers understand that it very well might, but “not necessarily”.
Truly reprehensible but shows that these people are trolls and having a real discussion is not something they have the integrity to do. Their careers are more important than the students harmed by the lies they condone in the name of helping those students their generous donors deem worthy of being helped.
Gary—who was my daughter’s math teacher, and by her reports is a good teacher and a nice and somewhat wacky guy—offered his own thoughts on “the Stuyvesant question” today.
FLERP!,
Thank you for posting this — I did not see this most recent blog post by Gary Rubinstein and I am really looking forward to reading the entire series and seeing the comments. This is a complex issue and the discussion has not been helped by some lousy reporting that needlessly amplifies conflict and false narratives instead of thoughtful views.
One of the reasons I am a fan of Gary’s blog — and especially looking forward to reading all his posts about specialized high schools — is that (like Diane Ravitch) he is interested in a genuine discussion of the issues. I may not always agree with his opinion as to what changes are better or not, but I always understand his fact-based reasoning and he listens to the comments and responds to the content.
(Compare that to Joe Nathan frequently citing specializing high schools admitting students via an exam, as his means of addressing questions of charter school cherry picking, as if the existence of specialized high schools somehow justifies dishonesty.)
Having been a parent of a kid in a specialized high school, I can see the various sides, but I also see so much disingenuousness in how these issues are discussed. Having seen some of Gary’s other posts — and his willingness to address the complexities when people bring them up — I think this could do a lot of good.
The discussion of charters has been controlled by false narratives and too many sub-par education reporters cannot get beyond that.
The discussion of specialized high schools has been controlled by false narratives and too many sub-par education reporters cannot get beyond that.
Education reporters would be well-served to read Gary Rubinstein and learn something about how to look at the false narratives pushed by the pro-charter folks. (There may be some false narratives also pushed by a subset of the anti-charter folks, but if so, they are not legitimized and amplified by the media).
And I suspect education reporters would be well-served to read this series about specialized high schools. Not to parrot Gary’s views on either charters or specialized high schools, but to learn how to evaluate and understand the complexities and dishonesty so as to help them present a far more accurate view to their readers than the false narratives they so often push.
Good for Gary for starting the discussion that needs to happen.