You can’t trust a word they say . . . or write

by David Safier

Steven Brill trashes teachers and district schools while he sings the praises of charters in his book, "Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America's Schools." (Full disclosure: I haven't read it and don't intend to waste my time reading it in the future.) The book has been reviewed extensively by serious educators and found wanting on a number of counts. The latest review I've seen is in the NY Times which, at one point, shows Brill can't be trusted on his facts, let alone his conclusions.

By way of background, multiple studies have reached the conclusion that district schools, charters and private schools are pretty much a wash when it comes to achievement. When you don't cherry pick (in other words, you don't say "BASIS" every time you say "charter schools"), equivalent students do pretty much as well in all three types of schools. Even studies by the Bush administration and conservative scholars bear this out.

But Brill wants to show charters are better, so at one point he chooses a specific instance to make his case. In Harlem, a district and a charter school share the same building. Brill says they have equivalent student bodies, yet the charter school's students do far better.

He's right about one thing. The achievement is higher at the charter. But the idea they have equivalent student bodies has no basis in reality.

According to the city, in 2010 P.S. 149 had more children poor enough to receive free lunch (76 percent vs. 67 percent for the charter); more children for whom English was a second language (13 percent vs. 1.5 for the charter); and more children with disabilities (22 percent vs. 16) [than the charter school].

No difference? Actually, there's a huge difference, enough to account for a wide disparity in student achievement without a shred of difference in the quality of education.

Readers lack the knowledge to combat misinformation like this. When conservative authors see themselves as propandists, when they have no scruples about the way they present information and misinformation, their conclusions are always suspect. Always.