There is perhaps no hotter topic in public education today than education reform. Spearheaded by policymakers and private investors, the modern reform movement's efforts—which include increased standardized testing, test-based evaluation of educators and widespread implementation of charter schools, among other things—are increasingly seen by a segment of the population as part of a larger goal to privatize America's public school system.
Lately, these efforts have experienced backlash on a local level, most recently in Bridgeport, Conn., where residents soundly voted out three school board members supporting noted reformer and superintendent Paul Vallas, known for replacing public schools with charters in post-Katrina New Orleans. The anti-reform movement also has significant supporters, from noted researchers and thought leaders to one-time reformers and policymakers.
So what's wrong with education reform? Here are five key arguments against the movement:
(Source: flickr user Chris Norrick)
1. NAEP SCORES HAVE NEVER BEEN BETTER
In her latest book, "Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools," New York University education professor Diane Ravitch argues that scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress have never been better. It's a bold-but-valid claim by the former reformer who served as assistant secretary of education under George H.W. Bush. If you don't take a close look, the NAEP scores do look flat (though slowly rising), but closer inspection reveals positive increases in scores across students of all ethnicities—and even some achievement gap shrinkage.
2. THE PUBLIC SCHOOL DROPOUT RATE IS THE LOWEST IN 40 YEARS
"Reign of Error" also addresses the nation's high school dropout rate—which is the lowest it has been in 40 years. In June, Education Week reported that the U.S. high school graduation rate is nearly 75%. Some states made huge gains, like Tennessee's 31.5% jump, between 2000 and 2010, and Vermont leads the nation with an 85% graduation rate. Still, parts of the country lag, with the District of Columbia notably having only a 57% graduation rate, and around 1 million students still didn't graduate this year, but there are likely also regional factors impacting these numbers. For example, top-ranked Vermont is more affluent than bottom-ranked D.C.
3. MORE AFFLUENT STUDENTS SKEW PRIVATE AND CHARTER SCORES HIGHER
Speaking of affluence, in The Public School Advantage, University of Illinois Professors Christopher and Sarah Lubienski find that private and charter schools tend to report higher scores because their students mostly come from families that are better off financially. Naturally, those families have more time and resources, like technology, to invest in giving their children an advantage in the classroom. On her blog, Diane Ravitch also points out a study by Bruce Baker, calling attention to statistics showing that charters in New York and Houston enroll fewer students with disabilities and English language learners than public schools. She does point out, however, that despite seeming like the status quo, this isn't the case for all charters. Regardless, students who are easier to educate because of advantages at home aren't necessarily being taught better or learning more at school.
4. THERE IS NO PANACEA FOR IMPROVEMENT
Let's face it—the U.S. is a huge country with numerous factors (socio-economic gaps being a huge one) that have varying impacts depending on the region. A one-size-fits-all, fast solution for everything is probably just not practical, no matter how much money corporate investors throw at reforms. Still, that hasn't stopped the belief that providing more charter schools or that failing districts can fire their way to success using tests as a standard for teacher performance. Additionally, the independence from the state enjoyed by private and charter schools may contribute to a lack of improvement, as many still reportedly focus on rote memorization rather than problem solving and invest more in marketing than instruction so they can attract the aforementioned students.
True reform, it seems, takes time. At least that's what you can gather from Massachusetts, which is now producing some of the world's best students 20 years after instituting its own reforms, part of which focused on sending more money to lower-income urban schools—something detractors of "corporate reform" commonly argue it doesn't focus enough on.
5. TEACH FOR AMERICA RECRUITS DO WORSE THAN CREDENTIALED UNION TEACHERS
Teach for America's cause—sending recent college graduates to low-income communities nationwide so they can help close achievement gaps—seems noble enough, but the anti-reform movement has several bones to pick with the practice. Writing for Slate, Tulane University Professor and former Teach for America corps member Catherine Michna outlines several of these issues: The students have no education training or experience and are often unprepared and they contribute to the firing of more expensive certified (and union) teachers in favor of cheaper staff, additionally displacing veteran teachers of color from those neighborhood schools. Furthermore, she points out that aside from being co-opted by corporate reformers as a union-busting, school-privatizing organization, Teach for America corps members now end up in charter schools with fewer veteran teachers to help guide them, and research doesn't back up claims that they're just as good as those certified teachers. Michna, like Ravitch, argues that those joining the organization would be better served as paid teacher's aides instead of teachers.
A hundred years ago, eight and a half per cent of American seventeen-year-olds had a high-school degree, and two per cent of twenty-three-year-olds had a college degree. Now, on any given weekday morning, you will find something like fifty million Americans, about a sixth of the population, sitting under the roof of a public-school building, and twenty million more are students or on the faculty or the staff of an institution of higher learning. Education is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution; the creation of the world’s first system of universal public education—from kindergarten through high school—and of mass higher education is one of the great achievements of American democracy. It embodies a faith in the capabilities of ordinary people that the Founders simply didn’t have.
It is also, like democracy itself, loose, shaggy, and inefficient, full of redundancies and conflicting goals. It serves many constituencies and interest groups, each of which, in the manner of the parable of the blind men and the elephant, sees its purpose differently. But, by the fundamental test of attractiveness to students and their families, the system—which is one of the world’s most ethnically diverse and decentralized—is, as a whole, succeeding. Enrollment in charter schools is growing rapidly, but so is enrollment in old-fashioned public schools, and enrollments are rising at all levels. Those who complete a higher education still do better economically. Measures of how much American students are learning—compared to the past, and compared to students in other countries—are holding steady, for the most part, even as more people are going to school.
So it’s odd that a narrative of crisis, of a systemic failure, in American education is currently so persuasive. This back-to-school season, we have Davis Guggenheim’s documentary about the charter-school movement, “Waiting for ‘Superman’ ”; two short, dyspeptic books about colleges and universities, “Higher Education?,” by Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus, and “Crisis on Campus,” by Mark C. Taylor; and a lot of positive attention to the school-reform movement in the national press. From any of these sources, it would be difficult to reach the conclusion that, over all, the American education system works quite well.
The school-reform story draws its moral power from the heartbreakingly low quality of the education that many poor, urban, and minority children in public schools get. This problem isn’t new, and the historical context is important: one of the cornerstones of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which for the first time directed substantial national funding to schools attended by these children. (George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind was technically a tweak to Johnson’s law, and Barack Obama is incorporating his education-reform ideas into another tweak.) The gap in educational achievement between black and white children narrowed during the nineteen-seventies and eighties, and has been mainly stuck since then, but it’s misleading to suggest that the gap is getting bigger.
It should raise questions when an enormous, complicated realm of life takes on the characteristics of a stock drama. In the current school-reform story, there is a reliable villain, in the form of the teachers’ unions, and a familiar set of heroes, including Geoffrey Canada, of Harlem Children’s Zone; Wendy Kopp, of Teach for America, the Knowledge Is Power Program; and Michelle Rhee, the superintendent of schools in Washington, D.C. And there is a clear answer to the problem—charter schools. The details of this story are accurate, but they are fitted together too neatly and are made to imply too much. For example, although most of the specific charter schools one encounters in this narrative are very good, the data do not show that charter schools in general are better than district schools. There are also many school-reform efforts besides charter schools: the one with the best sustained record of producing better-educated children in difficult circumstances, in hundreds of schools over many years, is a rigorously field-tested curriculum called Success for All, but because it’s not part of the story line it goes almost completely unmentioned. Similarly, on the issue of tenure, the clear implication of most school-reform writing these days—that abolishing teacher tenure would increase students’ learning—is an unproved assumption.
In higher education, the reform story isn’t so fully baked yet, but its main elements are emerging. The system is vast: hundreds of small liberal-arts colleges; a new and highly leveraged for-profit sector that offers degrees online; community colleges; state universities whose budgets are being cut because of the recession; and the big-name private universities, which get the most attention. You wouldn’t design a system this way—it’s filled with overlaps and competitive excess. Much of it strives toward an ideal that took shape in nineteenth-century Germany: the university as a small, élite center of pure scholarly research. Research is the rationale for low teaching loads, publication requirements, tenure, tight-knit academic disciplines, and other practices that take it on the chin from Taylor, Hacker, and Dreifus for being of little benefit to students or society.
Yet for a system that—according to Taylor, especially—is deeply in crisis, American higher education is not doing badly. The lines of people wanting to get into institutions that the authors say are just waiting to cheat them by overcharging and underteaching grow ever longer and more international, and the people waiting in those lines don’t seem deterred by price increases, even in a terrible recession.
There have been attempts in the past to make the system more rational and less redundant, and to shrink the portion of it that undertakes scholarly research, but they have not met with much success, and not just because of bureaucratic resistance by the interested parties. Large-scale, decentralized democratic societies are not very adept at generating neat, rational solutions to messy situations. The story line on education, at this ill-tempered moment in American life, expresses what might be called the Noah’s Ark view of life: a vast territory looks so impossibly corrupted that it must be washed away, so that we can begin its activities anew, on finer, higher, firmer principles. One should treat any perception that something so large is so completely awry with suspicion, and consider that it might not be true—especially before acting on it.
We have a lot of recent experience with breaking apart large, old, unlovely systems in the confidence of gaining great benefits at low cost. We deregulated the banking system. We tried to remake Iraq. In education, we would do well to appreciate what our country has built, and to try to fix what is undeniably wrong without declaring the entire system to be broken. We have a moral obligation to be precise about what the problems in American education are—like subpar schools for poor and minority children—and to resist heroic ideas about what would solve them, if those ideas don’t demonstrably do that. ♦