Telling the Truth About Education Myths

[Peter Campbell <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>]

In Education Myths, an extraordinarily sketchy book from Jay “I Never  
Met a Voucher I Didn’t Like” Greene, the fruits of this Manhattan  
Institute shill’s research labor are presented in an ideologically- 
stacked deck qua attack on public schools. With gems like “the sooner  
Americans realize that lack of resources is not the real problem in  
our schools, the sooner we can have a meaningful debate on how to  
make education more productive” and “the primary obstacle to  
attracting better teachers isn't simply raising pay,” Greene reveals  
not merely his ignorance, but also a mean-spirited disdain that more  
and more conservatives are uncloaking regarding both public schools  
and people living in poverty. Falling in line with John McWhorter,  
Greene’s ideological doppelganger at Manhattan Institute, the message  
for low-income students in America’s public schools is loud and  
clear: quit your whining . . . or else.

Green writes, “(I)f more money produces better results in schools, we  
would expect to see significant improvements in test scores during  
this period. That didn't happen. . . the high school graduation rate  
hasn't budged. Increased spending did not yield more learning.” (from  
an essay based on Greene’s 2005 book Education Myths, Rowman &  
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.)

Greene – obviously untainted by any exposure to how schools actually  
operate – believes that certain financial inputs lead directly to  
educational outputs. How quaint.

Just for fun, let’s apply Greene’s logic to "The Adventure in Iraq,  
Part 2: Dubbya’s Revenge."

If more money produces better results in wars on terror, we would  
expect to see significant improvements in global security during this  
period. That didn't happen. . . the cause for freedom hasn't budged.  
Increased spending did not yield more safety.

See, it’s a bit more complicated than Greene makes out. Isolating  
single variables for schools – expenditure on students on a per pupil  
basis – fails for the same reason that isolating single variables for  
wars on terror fails: it fails to take into consideration the many  
factors that simultaneously contribute to success or failure – of  
schools or wars. We all grant the President room to say that despite  
some bumps on the road, the war in Iraq is going well and that all we  
need to do is keep spending $2 billion per week and everything will  
be hunky-dory. Yet saying that public education – despite some bumps  
on the road – is going well and that all we need to do is spend more  
money and everything will be hunky-dory is like saying these days  
that the moon is made of cheese and all we have to do is figure out  
how to put it on crackers.

Most people understand that simply dumping boatloads of cash into  
Iraq is not going to bring peace and stability. Sure, it will help.  
But lasting, substantive peace will only be achieved when other  
factors are attended to.

Same with schools: simply dumping boatloads of cash into public  
schools, especially inner-city schools with large populations of low- 
income children, is not going to bring improved learning outcomes.  
Sure, it will help. But lasting, substantive improvements will only  
be achieved when other factors are attended to.

But while most people accept this logic with Iraq, it seems that  
fewer and fewer get it with our neediest public schools.

So let’s do this: let’s take Greene’s and other conservatives’ advice  
about public schools and apply it to Iraq. What would that look like?
spend less on Iraq – what evidence do we have to show that more money  
is helping? Let’s face it: throwing more money at counter-insurgents  
is not the answer.
hold Iraqis accountable for their results – how do we know that  
Iraqis are doing what is best for their citizens with the money  
they’ve been given? The fact is, we don’t. So let’s create something  
called AIP – Adequate Iraqi Progress. We’ll create standardized tests  
that will hold the Iraqis’ feet to the fire and force them to improve  
their country. Let’s face it: the Iraqi citizens will do nothing to  
improve their country unless they are given a push.
indiscriminate, unrelenting, random violence and terror is no excuse  
– Iraqis frequently cite social problems like mass killings,  
improvised explosive devices, bombed buildings, and ineffective  
police protection as excuses for their own poor progress towards  
freedom and democracy. They claim the existence of these challenges  
means democracy is doomed to fail. Some seem to think Iraqi failure  
is inherent in the face of a violent occupation. If the advocates of  
this argument were merely cautioning us to be mindful of difficulties  
like bombs and murder, or exhorting us to try to alleviate these  
problems, no one could disagree with them. But instead, they use  
these problems as an excuse to oppose Iraqi reforms. If Iraqis  
perform poorly in their path towards freedom, they argue, it's  
because of indiscriminate, unrelenting, random violence and terror.  
No national reform can ever make a difference. Nations who start out  
lagging under these conditions must always lag. Social problems are  
forever more powerful than anything a reformer like George W. Bush  
may do. This argument that nations are helpless in the face of  
indiscriminate, unrelenting, random violence and terror is not  
supported by hard evidence. It is a myth. The truth is that certain  
nations do a strikingly better job than others at overcoming  
challenges in the culture.
I don’t know of anyone who has said this, written this, or argued  
this, chiefly because it’s just plain stupid. But it’s also just  
plain not true, as in “It’s a lie.” This is called a “straw man”  
argument.

But this is precisely what Greene does. He sets up the opposition as  
a bunch of racist, pessimistic dolts who think that nothing can be  
done to help children and families who live in poverty. Of course,  
lots can be done. But doing it is an entirely different matter.

Certainly teacher quality, poorly-run schools, and badly-managed  
school districts are part of the problem. But only part. NCLB focuses  
exclusively on school reform. It overlooks other sources that  
contribute as much if not more to the achievement gap.

We need to counter the current rationale for public education -- to  
"compete in the global marketplace" -- with a different emphasis on  
national security: citizens that do not understand where we came from  
cannot shape where we are going. Citizens that do not understand how  
laws are made cannot participate in their creation or their  
transformation. What the business community wants and needs are  
innovative, energetic entrepreneurs who can identify problems and  
come up with solutions, people who can work together, communicate  
effectively, write clearly, and argue persuasively. These are the  
kinds of people that will contribute to this country's -- and this  
planet's -- well-being. Without these people, our country and our  
world is in jeopardy.

But the kinds of students that are being created today are test- 
taking drones, not the kinds of people we want to be running the  
world in the very near future. Even affluent kids are subject to  
these dumbing-down forces as NCLB starts to wrap its tentacles around  
suburban public schools.

Extraordinarily, Greene has no experience whatsoever as a teacher in  
a public school, much less a low-income public school in an inner- 
city neighborhood. But this does not prevent him from launching his  
distorted reading of other people’s research and other people’s  
experience and presenting it as the truth, a broadside aimed at . . .  
doing what? Helping poor kids? Improving public education?

If so, then who – exactly – benefits from this kind of idiocy that  
passes for analysis? What do we gain by beating up on poor people?  
Why not do everything we can to close the achievement gap, not take  
pot shots at low-income children and families?

---
Peter Campbell