Join the conversation

...about what is working in our public schools.

The Phony Debate Lives On

vonzastrowc's picture
By Claus von Zastrow on May 30, 2009

There seems to be no escape from the phony debate over whether schools alone or out-of-school social programs alone can close achievement gaps. Recently, David Brooks fanned the flames with his over-hasty conclusion that the success of the Harlem Children’s Zone’s Promise Academies bolsters the schools alone case.

Brooks distorted the conclusions of a recent Harvard study examining the academies' academic results. Responding to a chorus of complaints about Brooks's tactics, blogger Andy Rotherham fine tuned the argument a bit: “It’s the schools that actually matter most even in the HCZ [Harlem Children's Zone] model," he declared. To be fair, Rotherham isn't pulling his conclusions entirely out of thin air. The study's authors suggest that the Promise Academies are an indispensable ingredient of their students' success--and that the HCZ's wraparound services alone don't guarantee strong academic results.

But Rotherham and other Brooks supporters don't ask the essential follow-up question: Can the schools do it alone, without the HCZ model? The study’s authors are in fact much more cautious than Rotherham is. They conclude that “either the Promise Academy charter schools are the main driver of our results or the interaction of the schools and community investments is the impetus for such success.” This finding hardly deals a death-blow to arguments that schools can’t do it alone.

In fact, it’s not at all clear what “schools alone” even means in the context of the Promise Academies. According to the study:

The [Academies] provide free medical, dental and mental-health services (students are screened upon entry and receive regular check-ups), student incentives for achievement (money, trips to France, e.g.), high-quality, nutritious, cafeteria meals, support for parents in the form of food baskets, meals, bus fare, and so forth, and less tangible benefits such as the support of a committed staff.“

All this will sound awfully familiar to advocates of the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education [BBA], whom Brooks has maligned as defenders of a tired “status quo.” The schools, with generous outside funding, are taking on many out-of-school influences on student achievement.

What’s most tiresome about Brooks's bogus debate is the canard that BBA members think schools don’t matter. School improvement is a central pillar of the BBA manifesto. More to the point: Why on earth would anyone who has devoted his or her life to education believe schools are unimportant?

It’s common sense to do what we can to maximize schools’ chances of success. No one at the Promise Academies seems to doubt that wraparound services are an important part of their strategy. But that apparently doesn’t dissuade David Brooks.

Link to this story: http://www.learningfirst.org/phony-debate-lives

5 Comments Digg this article Del.icio.us

Well-stated, Claus. Without

Submitted by on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 20:17

Well-stated, Claus. Without demagoguery you clarify some key issues and ask the probing questions.

Come to think of it, if you asked such questions at a NYC Mayor Bloomberg press conference, might he also call you "a disgrace" as he did to a reporter recently?

»

I am puzzled as to why

Submitted by on Sat, 05/30/2009 - 21:28

I am puzzled as to why anyone, much less a reporter for the New York Times, would attribute the success of the Promise Academy to "schools alone" when it is so obvious that these children have the supports that educators have long been demanding for them. In fact Geoffrey Canada, the founder of the Harlem Children's Zone, explicitly emphasizes the importance of the first five years of a child's life, especially in regard to vocabulary development. This is precisely the approach suggested by a Broader, Bolder Approach to Education.

Do you have the feeling something is going on that is not quite right? Is it possible that the owners of the major newspapers are "in" with the same people who paid Al Sharpton to see things their way? Are these the same Wall Street magnates who have brought the United States to its knees? If so, what are they after now? Why would they want to deny children the health care and social supports that would make learning so much easier?

The good news is that Arne Duncan is a co-signer for A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education. Hopefully he and President Obama accept the obvious: School, home and community are all very important influences in the education of a child.

I think some members of the press are beginning to smell a rat. See the article (online) entitled "The Selling of School" in the June 15 issue of The Nation. Very interesting indeed.

»

Regarding the media's

Submitted by vonzastrowc on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 12:11

Regarding the media's motivation for pressing the either/or case on school reform: It's hard to say.... Journalists may be responding to talking points, of course--that would be no surprise. But I think there are other reasons. For example: * The media love a good fight, and internecine battles in the Democratic party made for good copy--until the Republicans decided to do the Democrats one better. * People would like to think there are easy solutions to big problems. So it's cheering for some (including national columnists like Brooks, Kristof, Alter, etc) to think that merit pay or the abolition of charter caps alone would solve everything--if only those pesky establishmentarians would get out of the way! It's harder to acknowledge that all reforms require trade offs, and that we have to weigh costs and benefits. It's still harder for columnists looking for a great lede to admit that even compelling reform ideas might need more development before they're ready for prime time. * Outrage is a seductive emotion. People of every ideological stripe are imputing evil motives to those they don't agree with. Outrage makes us feel good, and it helps us gloss over complexity or pretend difficult choices weren't difficult at all, Mike Petrilli at the Fordham Foundation recently criticized "both opponents and proponents of 'school reform'” for "vilify[ing] the other side with caricatures": http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2009/05/open-hearts-open-... * It's painful for most people who care about schools and children to see so many--particularly poor children and children of color--suffer the effects of inequality. Passions run high.

»

On the talking points issue

Submitted by Gary on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 21:13

On the talking points issue see Robert Pondisco's devil's dictionary of ed reform phrases we all use and what they really mean: http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/2009/05/19/ed-reform-devils-dictionary/. Example: “Champion of reform: A powerful, rich or influential person who agrees with me." Funny stuff.BTW, why can't I sign in? Gary

»

Thanks, Gary. Here's another

Submitted by vonzastrowc on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 11:01

Thanks, Gary.

Here's another example from Robert's posting:

“It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a step in the right direction”/; The data don’t support my pet reform.

Sorry about the sign-in issue, Gary. We're working on it and should have the comment protocols back to normal soon.

»

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options