K. Webster on the undue influence of businessmen on our public schools

Kathleen Webster engages with Jonathan Alter on his attack on Diane Ravitch and his praise of Bill Gates and the other Billionaire Boys Club for their involvement in  public education. For earlier critiques of Alter's attack , see here and here.  Kathleen points out that at the same time Gates and other corporate mavens are seeking to impose their favorite policies on our schools, they are contributing to hugebudget cuts here in NYC and throughout the country, by not paying their fair share of taxes. Thus their irresponsible behavior is causing a double whammy to our public schools. Microsoft, Gates' company, is one of the nation's prime experts in tax evasion; for more on this, see here and here.

To Mr. Alter: I leave it to others to debunk the absurdities of the rest of this article. But, Re: "what’s wrong with business executives ... devoting time and money to public schools? " If businesses executives would shoulder their share of the tax burden instead of milking this country for all its worth we would not need their "largesse" to fund our schools. And public schools could get back to the business of supporting the minds of our children to handle the complexities of this world.

So, "what's wrong with it"?  We don't want business executives in charge of the ethos of our education system by buying their way into positions of influence.  Because, speaking of your ironic comment, "That went well for this country...," I think we all know how that ethos has played out for everyone else.  K Webster

On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:23 AM, alterjonathan@gmail.com wrote: In your view, What's the motive of business in this context?

K's response: Thanks. Fair question.  But whether the motives are sinister or utterly based on good intentions, has no bearing on the prospect of undue influence of an outside interest in a public school. Everyone comes to this issue with a perspective honed by their life and outlook. I do too.

For example, those of us who are white and/or those of you who come from moneyed backgrounds will have an ethos (spoken, acknowledged, known, aware - or not) out of which decisions get made that  impact those who are, for example: not white, not moneyed. And frankly, we are not smart enough to be making those decisions. Business has a vested interest and a belief that their method, their ethos is the way forward. I understand that - of course they would! I fiercely disagree with that ethos for many reasons. 

The number one reason is that it doesn't work. It is not even working in the business world - except for the very very few. I think that no single influence should hold sway in schools, and certainly no influence without a thorough, ongoing and transparent vetting by the communities and teaching staff that a school intends to serve or employ. 

We've seen over and over again the presumption of "rightness" of a dominant and dominating culture/class/race/gender that gets proven so wrong in the light of progress.  But probably more insidious in all of this, is the gutting of public funding for education, which leaves parents and those who would fight for children (especially children who have been targeted by racism or economic depravation) hunting for the "goodies" that corporate sponsorship has in abundance. How do you turn down that offer? Even if you don't understand it or have time to investigate the long-range consequences of it?

Many small businesses in my community have stepped up and do step up to share their wealth because they believe in the principals who work hard to make the local schools excellent. They give her the money and assume she will know how to spend it. Of course businesses large and small should donate funds to schools!  

But not as a substitute for the paying of a fair share of their taxes so that WE the public and those who run our schools get to determine what gets spent where and for what.  The destruction of the infrastructure needed to create schools that are truly open and public is in no one's best interests. Everyone's ethos ends up being too narrow to be allowed to determine a school in any way. That takes a collaborative effort with all minds engaged, but particularly those who are most impacted by the end results.

Thanks for asking. Yours, K Webster

Douglas Massey on Diane Ravitch and Jonathan Alter's attack

The observations below are  from Douglas Massey, professor at Princeton and president of the American Academy of Political & Social Sciences (photo at left).  On Thursday night, the Academy presented the Daniel Moynihan Prize to Diane Ravitch, given annually to outstanding civic leaders and social scientists who "champion the use of evidence and informed judgment in the policy process. "   

Yet on Friday Jonathan Alter let loose a vicious attack on Diane, and enlisted Arne Duncan in an attempt to undermine her credibility, claiming that she uses "phony empiricism." Yesterday I posted some responses from parents, educators and advocates.  Alter, (photo to the right) a former Newsweek columnist, now works for a new branch of Bloomberg LP, run out of the Mayor's personal offices next to his home, and "intended to channel his personal philosophy and worldview," according to the NY Times.

For the potential conflicts of interest involved in Alter's attack on Diane, a prominent Bloomberg critic, see Salon.  Another good takedown showing how Alter has consistently spread anti-teacher propaganda in the service of Bill Gates and the rest of the Billionaire Boy's Club, and how the US Dept. of Education has been promoting his attack on Diane is at School Matters.  As Jim Horn writes, for the "Billionaire Boys Club... an inability to buy the truth has reached a crisis point that demands that the truth tellers, now, be burned at the stake."

Massey points out that the corporate reformers now dominating education policy in this nation, whose deceptive rhetoric, use of distorted data, and irresponsible and damaging policies Diane has critiqued, have been peddling "snake oil," and the fact that Alter and Duncan have launched this coordinated attack is a sign of her effectiveness.

Dear Diane:

      Getting pilloried in public and attacked by people in power means you are living up to the Moynihan legacy!   When it comes to education, Americans seem to be in the market for snake oil.  Inequalities of wealth and income have risen steadily for three decades, racial segregation continues, class segregation has deepened, and middle and working class families are fracturing in the face of this economic onslaught, but rather than face these fundamental realities politicians keep pandering to the public and putting forth an endless stream of quick fixes that don’t cost any money and don’t require real change---as if cosmetic changes in schools are somehow going to offset decades of disinvestment in the public sphere and rising concentrations of poverty.  We are also living through the most anti-intellectual, anti-scientific times in American history---and it’s not just social science that’s under attack.  

It’s also climate science, biological science, physical science---really any body of reasoning and evidence that challenges people’s ideologies, prejudices, and selfish interests.  The main theme to emerge from all the speeches the other night was how hard it is to make evidence a part of public debates and to influence public policies with logic and data.  Anyway, I’m glad you got the Moynihan Award and hope in some small way it gives you greater legitimacy and visibility in your struggles in the public realm.

Best wishes,

Doug

In defense of Diane Ravitch (not that she needs it!)

UPDATE and Correction: Alter is no longer working for Newsweek; also check out Salon's withering critique of his column, pointing out the conflict of interest involved in his attack on Diane, a prominent Bloomberg critic, while working for Bloomberg's personal media company.

Today, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek let loose an attack on Diane Ravitch for her recent oped in the NY Times, in which she pointed out how the claims made many of the charter advocates of   "miracle schools " are often based on inflated or distorted data.  

Last night, Diane won the Daniel Patrick Moynihan prize, given annually by the American Academy of Political and Social Science to outstanding civic leaders and social scientists who  "champion the use of evidence and informed judgment in the policy process. "  She richly deserves this award for standing up to the corporate reformers and venture philanthropists who consistently distort data to suit their own ideological biases. 

Below  is my response to the Alter column; I also reprint comments sent him directly or submitted online by NYC parent Jennifer Freeman, celebrated education reformer Debbie Meier, education advocate Robert Skeels, and Nancy Flanagan, a former teacher who writes a column in EdWeek.

If you'd like to send your own comment, you can email Jonathan at alterjonathan@gmail.com and/or submit them online.

 ______

Jonathan:   What you call "beefing up accountability and standards" is what others call high-stakes testing.  In case you were not aware, the National Academy of Sciences has just come out with a new report, showing how damaging and unfair to both kids and teachers these sort of high stakes accountability schemes are.  Perhaps you should read this report rather than attacking Diane Ravitch.  Last night, she won the Moynihan award from the American Academy of Political and Social Science, which recognizes outstanding civic leaders who champion the use of evidence and informed judgment in the policy process.

Your column is the opposite; using rhetoric and invective instead of evidence and careful reasoning to attack one of the leaders in the efforts to preserve our public schools from the corporate reformers who want to impose a free-market, competitive business model.  Many of them are being funded by Bill Gates, Eli Broad, and the Walton family, who argue that resources and large classes don't matter for poor kids, while sending their own children to private schools where the tuition is $30,000 per year and class sizes are 20 or less.

The move towards privatization (and yes, charters are schools that are privately run, with public money) is leading to even more inequitable conditions, as charters enroll far fewer of our most at risk students (ELL, homeless, free lunch and special education), students who instead are increasingly concentrated in our public schools.   Charter schools also have very high attrition rates, for both students and teachers. The silliest comment above is from Duncan, who claims that Diane is "insulting all of the hardworking teachers, principals and students all across the country" whereas it is she who has been defending them against Duncan, who has called for mass firings of teachers and wants to impose unfair evaluation and merit pay schemes, policies that don't work and will further undermine the teaching profession.

Moreover, Diane  supports real education reforms that work:  like equitable funding, experienced teachers, smaller classes, and a well-rounded curriculum.  I guess your attack,  as well as Duncan's, is a sign of how threatened the corporate reformers are whenever someone who opposes their policies has a chance to air their views in the mainstream media, because they fear that an open debate will lead to more people understanding their systematic distortion of  data.

Let the debate begin and let all sides have a chance to air their views in the mainstream media, and not be frightened off by this sort of  underhanded attack.  I'm sure Diane won't be.  - Leonie Haimson

 ____

Hi Jonathan-

I think it's so weird the way you attacked Diane Ravitch today. You sounded like Glenn Beck attacking climate scientists, all hyperbole. Ravitch is a serious person, and her view has nothing to do with "we should throw up our hands and admit that nothing will change". How do you get from her view that we should put more resources into holistic programs to fight poverty in conjunction with improving education to "we should throw up our hands and admit that nothing will change"?  I have had a ringside seat with 2 kids in NYC public schools for the past 10 years (we live just a couple of blocks from your and Emily's old apartment) and my experience at ground zero of the reform movement more closely reflects Diane Ravitch than Joel Klein or Arne Duncan. I hope in the future as a thoughtful columnist you will try to be more nuanced than Glenn Beck when you disagree with someone's perspective. One last thought--as an employee of Bloomberg you should be careful to remain objective about education. This piece did not sound very objective.  Regards, Jennifer [Freeman]

--------------------------

I didn't get beyond the first paragraph.  Diane is a Whittaker Chambers?  Are you out of your mind?  I couldn't get past that absurd slander--wherever did that come from???  It was impossible to take your other criticisms seriously once you went down that path.

Of course, her allies (like me) have spent, you seem to forget,  their adult lives working daily, year after year, to reinvent the way we "do" schooling for the sake of our faltering democracy.   Odd as it seems to call folks like me defenders of the status quo to call someone like Ravitch akin to a "reformed" Communist  and a "reformed" traitor is...I can't find a word for it.  It's also utterly puzzling as a metaphor.  I'm not clear in this usage of history whether you see Chambers or Hiss as the hero or villain?  The only similarity is that Chambers changed his mind.  Is that the sin?

We all make mistakes--but you owe Ravitch and many others an apology. -- Deborah Meier

_______
 Mr. Alter:  Yours is perhaps the most mendacious essay I've ever seen. The outright dismissal of Dr. Ravitch's use of the very same statistics that privatizers use to tout their lucrative education schemes is humorous. The fact that she can derive the correct conclusion from them is what scares those bent on profiting from education.

"[C]harter schools are in fact public schools?" Is it their unelected boards that make them public? Is it their negligible accountability to the community what makes them public? Is their nearly complete financial opaqueness (like a Form 990 really tells us anything) that makes them public? Is it their ability to avoid teaching children with special needs or disciplinary issues what makes them public? Oh, yes, Mr. Alter et al will remind us that since they take public funds, that that must make them public. How quaintly Randian. 

Blackwater/Xe takes public funds, are we to understand that they are a public institution as well?

Indeed the most absurd part of your unmerited attack on Dr. Ravitch is the quote from Arne Duncan, who is a pariah amongst not only teachers, but  most community activists. Duncan's disdain for public school teachers is legendary, his talk of "insulting all of the hardworking teachers" rings both duplicitous and insincere. His very occupying of his post is the ultimate insult to anyone that supports public education. ---  Robert D. Skeels

------

Speaking of straw men, Jonathan Alter, you have just provided a textbook case in media manipulation:

#1) Begin with a sports analogy, Arne's go-to technique when the data isn't really on his side.

#2) Choose a person, rather than policies or solutions, as your target, because it doesn't require as much intellectual horsepower in analysis. For good measure, compare her to a Communist, "in denial."

#3) Trot out resonant cliches--"favor the status quo," "phenomenal results," "hardworking teachers," "sophisticated evaluations," "take down...an inner-city school"--and, my personal favorite, "working with unions." As if.

#4) Use lots of little deceptive captions, like "Classroom Malpractice" and "Misuse of Statistics" so that your average column skimmer will come away with an impression, rather than a more complex analysis of what's really going on in this your-research vs. my-research policy skirmish.

#5) Frost it all with incendiary language: "slimed," "pernicious," "malpractice."

Educators across the board respect Diane Ravitch's scholarship and conclusions. She made your buddy Arne look bad by uncovering the real data on his miracle schools. Assassinating her character makes you look bad in turn. For shame. -- Nancy Flanagan

Jonathan Alter blusters about KIPP and merit pay

Jonathan Alter blusters in a column in Newsweek about what Obama should do to reform our schools:

…. we know what works to close the achievement gap. At the 60 KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) schools, more than 80 percent of 16,000 randomly selected low-income students go to college, four times the national average for poor kids.

Here is the response of Caroline Grannam, a SF parent and blogger who is one of the few people to independently assess KIPP’s claims:

In the current Newsweek, columnist Jonathan Alter earnestly claims that 12,800 alumni of KIPP schools have gone on to college. Here's what Alter wrote: At the 60 KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) schools, more than 80 percent of 16,000 randomly selected low-income students go to college, four times the national average for poor kids. The actual number, according to KIPP itself, is 447.

It turns out that that 80% figure was derived from calculating the matriculation rates at only two KIPP schools.

Alter also omits to mention the self-selection process involved in applying to KIPP, well as the rigorous interview process the school uses that discourages less motivated students from enrolling, including making them promise to attend school six days a week and most of the working day. Nor the high attrition rates, with some schools losing 50 percent of their students over three years.

Yet Alter continues to spin wildly:

[Obama] …hasn't been direct enough about reforming NCLB so that it revolves around clear measurements of classroom-teacher effectiveness. Research shows that this is the only variable (not class size or school size) that can close the achievement gap. Give poor kids from broken homes the best teachers, and most learn. Period.

Where is the research base for this? Don’t bother to ask, as there is none.

We don’t even know how to identify potentially effective teachers, not to mention how to make them more effective once they’ve been hired. Aside from treating them like professionals, giving them a smaller class and persuading them to stick around in the profession longer.

More from Alter:

To get there, Obama should hold a summit of all 50 governors and move them toward national standards and better recruitment, training and evaluation of teachers. He should advocate using Title I federal funding as a lever to encourage "thin contracts" free of the insane work rules and bias toward seniority, as offered by the brilliant new superintendent in Washington, D.C., Michelle Rhee. He should offer federal money for salary increases, but make them conditional on differential pay (paying teachers based on performance and willingness to work in underserved schools, which surveys show many teachers favor) and on support for the elimination of tenure.

What? Surveys, including this one from Education Sector, which generally favors such proposals, show that teachers overwhelmingly oppose basing salaries on performance (read test scores.): “…one in three teachers (34 percent) favors giving financial incentives to teachers whose kids routinely score higher than similar students on standardized tests. Most teachers today (64 percent) oppose the idea, up 8 percentage points from the 56 percent who opposed it in 2003.”

Nevertheless, Alter continues in this same vein:

And the next time he [Obama] addresses them, he should tell the unions they must change their focus from job security and the protection of ineffective teachers to higher pay and true accountability for performance—or face extinction.

Good luck with that one. I’m sure the NEA and the AFT are quaking in their boots.

As Grannam points out about Alter’s error in reporting the number of KIPP students that have gone to college that could also be applied to his false claims about teacher surveys and class size:

It's ironic that Alter made that rather significant error in a column mostly devoted to blasting and blaming teachers for troubled schools and calling for getting rid of problem teachers, along with eliminating tenure and increasing "accountability" for teachers. I wonder how he feels about more accountability for journalists.

In case you’re interested, Alter lives in Montclair NJ, where no doubt the class sizes are small, and teacher tenure reigns supreme, along with high salaries, and performance pay is nowhere in sight.

But in a school district like NYC, with lots of immigrant and poor students, it doesn’t matter what class sizes they are crammed into or what overcrowding exists. All will be well and teachers will magically be able to reach all thirty plus kids per class, as long as the people in charge crack the whip loud and hard enough and can threaten them with losing their jobs if they don’t deliver.

A sure fire formula for success if ever I’ve heard it.

I’ll end with Grannam’s conclusion in her SF Examiner blog:

I suspect that anyone more familiar with the inside of a diverse urban classroom than Jonathan Alter is (it’s evident that such a setting is as familiar to him as the surface of Mars) would have the same reaction I did: Send that man to teach in an overwhelmed inner-city school for a few months, and then let’s see how he feels about blaming and bashing teachers for the challenges such schools face.”

Comments? Write to webeditors@newsweek.com; copy to jalter@newsweek.com