Home > Uncategorized > Unregulated Competition’s Progeny

Unregulated Competition’s Progeny

August 3, 2014

A Diane Ravitch blog post yesterday and a New Yorker article she linked to earlier this week describe examples of the kind of dishonesty that results when “competition” is introduced into schools.

One of her blog posts yesterday describes the ongoing saga of Terrence Carter, who was announced as the incoming superintendent of schools in New London CT and was subsequently found to have lied about his credentials and plagiarized his letter of application. It seems that one of the reasons the New London School Board might have overlooked these details is that MR. Carter (not DR. Carter as he presented himself) had letters of reference from Arne Duncan, CT Governor Malloy, and CT Commissioner Stefan Pryor. Unfortunately for MR. Carter, several activist parents, Jonathan Lender of the Hartford Courant, and a professor from Connecticut College did some legwork. Here’s two excerpts from the Courant’s article:

This is how the pro-privatization, big-philanthropy-funded networks and organizations tend to work. They pass their own people along and up, greasing rails and plumping resumes as they go. And the main criteria for ‘success’ often seems not to be real leadership characteristics, so much as willingness to be a good soldier when it comes to pushing forward a particular reform agenda, said Lauren Anderson, an assistant professor of education at Connecticut College in New London.

…(Carter) filed for bankruptcy twice; his application essay included long passages identical with other educators’ writings on the Internet; a national research organization released a copy of a bio that it says Carter submitted in 2011 with the claim that he had a Ph.D. from Stanford University, which Stanford says he does not; and he got a Ph.D. in 1996 from “Lexington University” — which doesn’t have a campus and had a website offering degrees for several hundred dollars with the motto “Order Now, Graduate Today!”

Diane Ravitch’s concluding paragraph is a chillingly accurate synopsis of the privatization trend in public schools:

The Carter story is not about one man, but about the bipartisan movement to disregard credentials, to close schools, to hire ill-prepared TFA, and to favor privately managed schools over community public schools. To favor democratically elected school boards over management by hedge fund millionaires.

The New Yorker article describes how competition played out in Atlanta where the cheating scandals in the mid 2000s brought down the Superintendent and 178 staff members and resulted in students believing they had achieved academic success when they had, in fact, not improved at all. The most telling paragraph from the entire article is this:

John Ewing, who served as the executive director of the American Mathematical Society for fifteen years, told me that he is perplexed by educators’ ”infatuation with data,” their faith that it is more authoritative than using their own judgment. He explains the problem in terms of Campbell’s law,a principle that describes the risks of using a single indicator to measure complex social phenomena: the greater the value placed on a quantitative measure, like test scores, the more likely it is that the people using it and the process it measures will be corrupted. “The end goal of education isn’t to get students to answer the right number of questions,” he said. “The goal is to have curious and creative students who can function in life.” In a 2011 paper inNotices of the American Mathematical Society, he warned that policymakers were using mathematics “to intimidate—to preëmpt debate about the goals of education and measures of success.”

Mr. Ewing needs to know that educators are not infatuated with use of data to measure school or teacher performance: politicians, economists, and those who want to “run schools like a business” are the ones who believe a “…single indicator can be used to measure complex social phenomenon“… and they believe this because it is a cheap, easy, and fast way to make changes to school.

Both of these articles illustrate what can happen when competition occurs in an unregulated or lightly regulated atmosphere… people cut corners to get ahead. We’ve seen it in professional sports, in banking, and in politics. Competition isn’t a bad thing if the game isn’t rigged and/or the rules are clearly understood and impartially regulated. Unregulated competition will always result in cheating.

%d bloggers like this: