Stewart: If Only They Attacked Racial Gaps in Schools Like They Attack Campbell Brown
This essay was originally published on Citizen Ed’s website.
In a recent post, I delved into a Twitter argument between Carol Burris and 74 Editor-in-Chief Campbell Brown regarding NAEP, proficiency, and grade-level outcomes. However, the true story lies beyond the technical details of their semantic exercise. The real issue is how intelligent individuals often miss the main point.
Observing figures like Carol Burris, Diane Ravitch, and Tom Loveless attacking Campbell Brown feels like being a referee in a dispute among people of the same racial group. Although my allies have already voiced their opinions on the matter, I feel compelled to speak up as well, as these exchanges frustrate me due to their failure to address the core issue.
Before diving into the heart of the matter, it’s important to provide some background information on these individuals:
Burris is a highly esteemed (and well-compensated) former principal of a Long Island high school. She now leads a labor-funded organization that argues against education options outside of traditional public schools, even when those schools are failing.
Ravitch is a former historian who turned into an education polemicist over a decade ago, resulting in her renouncing 90% of her life’s work.
Loveless is an Ivy League researcher, former teacher unionist, and occasional supporter of education reform.
On the other side, Brown is a former television news journalist who now dedicates her time to advocating for school reform.
Now that you’re familiar with the main players, I can explain their clashes more thoroughly.
Losing Sight of the Main Issue
I apologize if I come across as dismissive of these intelligent individuals who engage in academic discussions. From my perspective, it often seems like a self-indulgent competition that can become a costly distraction. In my opinion, the focus of all educational debates should center around student achievement. How are our children faring?
You’re probably already aware of the answer. You’re not unintelligent. So, why are these brilliant minds nitpicking definitions instead of addressing the alarming results coming from many of our schools?
Ignoring Burris’ intentions requires an unacceptable level of naivety. Her attack is driven by political and ideological reasons, mainly aimed at defending traditional school districts against claims that they shouldn’t monopolize the education of children. It’s fair for her to correct what she perceives as inaccuracies about education, considering her expertise and credentials. However, she veers into questionable territory when she ascribes reductionist motives to education reformers ("Brown and her allies embrace privatization and the commercial mindset, while I believe that equity reforms embedded in democratically governed public schools are the most effective and ethical means to improvement").
Furthermore, she targets the media platform, , and emphasizes Brown’s financial backers.
Personally, I couldn’t care less about who funds Brown or what Burris thinks about it. What matters most is that their focus shifts attention away from student outcomes.
American students, particularly those who are black or brown, are performing poorly. Regardless of who is to blame, we cannot improve the situation until we acknowledge the problem.
Take a look at this graphic showcasing the 2015 NAEP 12th grade results, and allow it to convey the message. To me, it’s concerning:
Moreover, can we stop pretending that the demand for better and more educational options, as well as the call for radical school improvement, only comes from deceitful individuals driven by abstract concepts like "privatization" and a "commercial mindset"?
While cleverly portraying school reform as solely the creation of corporate villains, Burris and her allies conveniently ignore a more important point: people of color widely support school reform. Erasing us from the discussion as if our voices don’t matter is a form of erasure that we cannot allow.
Similarly, it is equally foolish for Burris to claim that "democratically governed public schools are the most effective and ethical means to improvement" rather than embracing the new options provided by school reformers. Some of the worst schools for us have been "democratically governed." While this phrase may hold nostalgic significance for her, it tells me that Burris prioritizes sentimentality and a unionized workforce above all else.
Her definition of public education traps students in institutions where career-oriented individuals have jobs without any accountability or measurable results. Above all, this is the core of all her arguments against Brown and other school reformers.
The ramifications of underperforming schools, whether they be racial, social, political, or economic in nature, are countless and severe. However, individuals like Burris, who garnered a sizable $268,000 income as a principal, or Ravitch, who only became a fervent advocate for public schools once her own children had completed their private education, or Valerie Strauss – another parent from a private school background – who utilizes her platform in the Washington Post to amplify the questionable claims made by teachers’ unions (all the while conveniently disregarding her ties to communication contracts with labor), will not experience the detrimental effects. As a result, it is marginalized children who suffer, bearing the brunt of these consequences on a daily basis.
Brown’s decision to utilize her position to remind us that we are consistently producing "graduates" who lack the necessary skills to thrive in the real world is justified. If only her adversaries directed the same level of energy they pour into criticizing her towards addressing the achievement gap, perhaps some progress could be made.
Sign up for Newsletter to receive stories like these directly to your inbox.
