Retired Oklahoma City teacher John Thompson wrote in The Oklahoman about the early days of the teacher-bashing movement. At its center he found a journalist-entrepreneur named Steve Brill, who wrote a slashing attack on teachers, tenure, and teacher unions in The New Yorker. Even in Oklahoma, Brill’s article was big news, because it identified the scapegoat that legislators wanted: teachers. Brill subsequently wrote a book celebrating charter schools, called Class Warfare. In that book, he falsely claimed that I had been bribed by teachers’ unions to become pro-union and pro-public school. So, as you might imagine, he is not a friend of mine.

John Thompson wrote:

In 2010, I attended an Oklahoma legislative committee meeting where most lawmakers were reading a New Yorker article, Steve Brill’s “The Rubber Room.”  It was full of attacks on teachers. Legislators found his narrative persuasive, and it contributed to the passage of the most destructive education bill I ever witnessed.

I then reached out to Brill, trying to share the social and cognitive science that explained why he was using invalid and unreliable data in support of a blame game that would undermine teaching and learning.

So, I was curious about what he now believes. After all, the subtitle for a recent interview with him was:

New York repealed measures that made it easier to fire ineffective teachers. The veteran journalist wonders if they ever mattered.

But, Brill, a non-educator, still sticks with an anti-teacher ideology, propagated by “astro-turf think tanks” that rejected the scientific method when trying to use venture capitalism procedures for transforming traditional public schools. Even after those reward-and-punish policies demonstrably failed, Brill says, “in public education, I think there’s a pretty good argument that the people abusing and undermining the system are actually the teachers.” 

“The Rubber Room” presented little evidence that teachers were to blame. His sources focused on “the twentieth of one percent of all New York City teachers” who had been removed from the classroom, but not fired. He believed the PR from corporate reformers like The New Teacher Project (TNTP) and the New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein who thought “tenure is ridiculous.” 

Although value-added models (VAMs) were the foundation for holding teachers accountable for test score growth, Brill only used the term “value-added” once, and he didn’t bother to address that statistical model’s flawed methodology for evaluating individual teachers. (Some of those models even held teachers accountable for outcomes of students they never met!)

Brill merely wrote that the “value-added scores” was “a phrase that sends chills down the spine of most teachers’ union officials.”

Brill didn’t understand why it was impossible to recruit top teachers to highest-poverty schools using evaluation metrics that were biased against inner city teachers. Neither did he understand why these data-driven evaluations would prioritize “jukin the stats” and drill-and-kill instruction that would undermine holistic and meaningful teaching and learning. Brill certainly didn’t understand that teachers and unions also fought against VAMs in order to protect their students from teach-to-the-test malpractice which they would incentivize.

Brill was also dismissive of peer review, which the teachers union supported, and which was a constructive and efficient method of removing ineffective teachers from the classroom. (In my experience, union leaders invested a great deal of political capital in removing ineffective teachers; it was administrators that would lose their nerve and not exit those teachers.)  

Brill drew upon the anti-union TNTP, which spread inaccurate information on the Toledo Plan, where districts and unions worked together to efficiently remove ineffective teachers. The TNTP claimed that the Toledo peer review program only removed .7% of probationary teachers over a five-year period.  In fact, 12.9% of teachers in the plan were removed from the classroom in 2009. The percentages of 2008 probationary teachers removed from the classroom in Syracuse (9.7%), Rochester (7%), Montgomery County (10.5%), and Minneapolis (37%) were far greater than outcomes that VAMs produced.

And that brings us to today’s attacks on education. After a history of failure, corporate reformers have moved away from teacher evaluation systems that rely on test score growth, even though they still tend to blame teachers and unions. But state schools Superintendent Ryan Walters now represents today’s version of disempowering teachers.

Walters pushed for and succeeded in getting the Oklahoma State Board of Education to revoke the license of Norman High School’s Summer Boismier, who “covered her bookshelves with red paper, [with] the words ‘books the state doesn’t want you to read,’ and a QR code to the Brooklyn Public Library, which offers any student free access to banned books.” 

She has asked an Oklahoma County judge to review and reverse the revocation order, saying it was unlawful, frivilous and without a legitimate cause.

Also, Edmond’s Regan Killackey is fighting against Walters’ effort to revoke his teaching license for a photo showing him playing with his kids at a Halloween supply store in September 2019. His daughter was wearing a mask of Donald Trump and his son held up a plastic sword, and Killackey had a grimaced look on his face.

If teachers lose their due process rights, who will be able to resist Walters’ civics curriculum committee which includes the Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Roberts, a key sponsor of Project 2025?