Diane Ravitch says David Guggenheim’s new movie, “Waiting for Superman,” is effective — and unfair — propaganda: “a powerful weapon on behalf of those championing the ‘free market’ and privatization.”

Ravitch writes in the New York Review of Books: “Guggenheim presents the popularized version of an account of American public education that is promoted by some of the nation’s most powerful figures and institutions. — Public schools are bad, privately managed charter schools are good.”

According to Ravitch, the move is fatally flawed because it ignores the huge impact of poverty; it grossly overstates the success of charter schools. And, she says, the movie’s view that bad teaching is is the primary reason for bad education is patently untrue.

Ravitch says, “The message of this film has become alarmingly familiar:

• American public education is a failed enterprise.
• The problem is not money. Public schools already spend too much.
• Test scores are low because there are so many bad teachers, whose jobs are protected by powerful unions.
• Students drop out because the schools fail them, but they could accomplish practically anything if they were saved from bad teachers.
• The only hope for the future of our society, especially for poor black and Hispanic children, is escape from public schools, especially to charter schools, which are mostly funded by the government but controlled by private organizations, many of them operating to make a profit.”

Ravitich points out, “No successful public school teacher or principal or superintendent appears in the film; indeed there is no mention of any successful public school, only the incessant drumbeat on the theme of public school failure.”

She asks, “Why did Davis Guggenheim pay no attention to the charter schools that are run by incompetent leaders or corporations mainly concerned to make money? Why propound to an unknowing public the myth that charter schools are the answer to our educational woes, when the filmmaker knows that there are twice as many failing charters as there are successful ones? Why not give an honest accounting?”

Ravitch writes, “The propagandistic nature of Waiting for “Superman” is revealed by Guggenheim’s complete indifference to the wide variation among charter schools. There are excellent charter schools, just as there are excellent public schools. Why did he not also inquire into the charter chains that are mired in unsavory real estate deals, or take his camera to the charters where most students are getting lower scores than those in the neighborhood public schools? Why did he not report on the charter principals who have been indicted for embezzlement, or the charters that blur the line between church and state? Why did he not look into the charter schools whose leaders are paid $300,000–$400,000 a year to oversee small numbers of schools and students?”

Other excerpts from the review:

• Some fact-checking is in order, and the place to start is with the film’s quiet acknowledgment that only one in five charter schools is able to get the “amazing results” that it celebrates. … The proportion of charters that get amazing results is far smaller than 17 percent
• Guggenheim seems to believe that teachers alone can overcome the effects of student poverty, even though there are countless studies that demonstrate the link between income and test scores. He shows us footage of the pilot Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier, to the amazement of people who said it couldn’t be done. Since Yeager broke the sound barrier, we should be prepared to believe that able teachers are all it takes to overcome the disadvantages of poverty, homelessness, joblessness, poor nutrition, absent parents, etc.
• Hanushek has released studies showing that teacher quality accounts for about 7.5–10 percent of student test score gains. Several other high-quality analyses echo this finding, and while estimates vary a bit, there is a relative consensus: teachers statistically account for around 10–20 percent of achievement outcomes. Teachers are the most important factor within schools.
• According to University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber, about 60 percent of achievement is explained by nonschool factors, such as family income. So while teachers are the most important factor within schools, their effects pale in comparison with those of students’ backgrounds, families, and other factors beyond the control of schools and teachers.
• Guggenheim skirts the issue of poverty by showing only families that are intact and dedicated to helping their children succeed. … Nothing is said about children whose families are not available, for whatever reason, to support them, or about children who are homeless, or children with special needs.
• Guggenheim didn’t bother to take a close look at the heroes of his documentary. Geoffrey Canada is justly celebrated for the creation of the Harlem Children’s Zone, which not only runs two charter schools but surrounds children and their families with a broad array of social and medical services. Canada has a board of wealthy philanthropists and a very successful fund-raising apparatus. With assets of more than $200 million, his organization has no shortage of funds. Canada himself is currently paid $400,000 annually. For Guggenheim to praise Canada while also claiming that public schools don’t need any more money is bizarre. Canada’s charter schools get better results than nearby public schools serving impoverished students. If all inner-city schools had the same resources as his, they might get the same good results.
• But contrary to the myth that Guggenheim propounds about “amazing results,” even Geoffrey Canada’s schools have many students who are not proficient. On the 2010 state tests, 60 percent of the fourth-grade students in one of his charter schools were not proficient in reading, nor were 50 percent in the other. It should be noted—and Guggenheim didn’t note it—that Canada kicked out his entire first class of middle school students when they didn’t get good enough test scores to satisfy his board of trustees.
• Contrary to Guggenheim’s mythology, even the best-funded charters, with the finest services, can’t completely negate the effects of poverty.
• Another highly praised school that is featured in the film is the SEED charter boarding school in Washington, D.C. SEED seems to deserve all the praise that it receives from Guggenheim, CBS’s 60 Minutes, and elsewhere. It has remarkable rates of graduation and college acceptance. But SEED spends $35,000 per student, as compared to average current spending for public schools of about one third that amount. Is our society prepared to open boarding schools for tens of thousands of inner-city students and pay what it costs to copy the SEED model? Those who claim that better education for the neediest students won’t require more money cannot use SEED to support their argument.
• If we are serious about improving our schools, we will take steps to improve our teacher force, as Finland and other nations have done. That would mean better screening to select the best candidates, higher salaries, better support and mentoring systems, and better working conditions.
• We should also insist that only highly experienced teachers become principals (the “head teacher” in the school), not retired businessmen and military personnel.
• Every school should have a curriculum that includes a full range of studies, not just basic skills. And if we really are intent on school improvement, we must reduce the appalling rates of child poverty that impede success in school and in life.

Kettering Schools has a 4.9 mill tax levy on the November 2 ballot. Last night, I attended a community meeting concerning the levy — held at J.E. Prass Elementary School — the last of nine meetings conducted by Superintendent Jim Schoenlein and Treasurer Steve Clark.

I videotaped the presentations, but they did not differ in substance from what I recorded from the first community meeting, held September 21, that I posted here.

During the discussion period, I emphasized that in my judgment the levy campaign’s false claim that teachers and administrators agreed to a “pay freeze” was causing a big erosion of public trust in Kettering School leadership, and that mistrust would lead to opposition to the levy. I repeated points I made in this post, and I reminded Dr. Schoenlein that he had used the term “pay freeze” four times in his article in the Blue Ribbon Report and that no where — on the district’s web-site or in any levy literature — had I found the term explained. (Since the meeting, I found this partial explanation, at a site hosted by the levy committee. But the explanation fails to tell the magnitude of the step increases — how many teachers or administrators generally receive “step” increases,  the dollar amount of a step increases, or the total cost of these increases. At this site I was surprised to see posted my you-tube of Dr. Schoenlein from the first community meeting.)

I pointed out that social security recipients have a real “pay freeze.” But, Kettering teachers and administrators have automatic “step” pay increases. Last year’s data indicated 65% of teachers got a longevity step increase and, that percentage is probably fairly consistent.  Teachers also may gain training step increases for acquiring additional graduate hours, but the number of teachers who qualify each year is not available.

I asked Mr. Clark how much the “step” increases for teachers cost for one year and his estimate was about $1 million. It is amazing that the district can claim that teachers will have a pay freeze and at the same time acknowledge that, regardless of such a freeze, pay increases for teachers will amount to $1 million.

I also asked Dr. Schoenlein to explain his comment in the Blue Ribbon Report that teachers had agreed to “pay more of their own health insurance.” As I explained — “Kettering Superintendent’s Claim About Teachers Paying More For Health Insurance Is Misleading” — and, in the meeting, Dr. Schoenlein explained a definition of “paying more” that a reader of the Blue Ribbon Report would not expect: receiving less money is equivalent to “paying more.”

After the meeting, I spoke briefly with Jim Brown, who, along with me, last year challenged the three incumbents running for reelection and who was elected, replacing Frank Maus. I hadn’t seen Jim since last year and I told him that I had to be frank with him, that I was disappointed that, as the newly elected board member, he hadn’t taken a stand against advertising a “pay freeze” — which, to me, seems a deliberate strategy to mislead the public. I later regretted speaking to him in such a manner. At this late date, what was the point? If I am to have any chance to be a positive influence on Kettering public education, as I spoke of last year, I need to generate positive rapport with school and community leaders who may be like minded.

I was really sort of flabbergasted last year, in the 6.9 mill renewal campaign, that the Kettering Board was so deliberate in their strategy of misinformation that I made a formal complaint to the Ohio Election Commission. The board’s willingness to mislead voters in order to pass a levy was what pushed me into seeking election to the board, and as I explain in this you-tube of my comments at the public forum in last year’s election, the effort to misrepresent caused me to lose trust in the leadership of Kettering Schools.

During the meeting, Ashley Webb, who was elected to the Kettering City Council last year in a very competitive race, indicated that he felt that there needs to be changes in policy in the school district to more align the compensation and benefits of the public employees to those of employees in the private sector. And, he seemed to agree with my point that a levy campaign of misinformation is inappropriate and unwise. But, he said, regardless, he hoped that citizens would support the levy. He said he was impressed with the action of cutting costs that resulted in reducing the levy by 2 mills, from 6.9 mills to 4.9 mills, after the May defeat.

One man asked if the benefit package received by administrators was different from that received by teachers. In response, both Dr. Schoenlein and Mr. Clark indicated that the benefit package of teachers and administrators in Kettering is about the same. The superintendent and the treasurer, evidently, both forgot. But I reminded them of the fact that in terms of retirement benefits there is a big difference. The State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) collects a huge amount of money — 24% of the gross salary of teachers and administrators. In Kettering, of this 24%, teachers pay 10%, but administrators pay nothing. An administrator making $100,000, in effect, has a $10,000 bonus.

Dr. Schoenlein’s response was that other districts also pay all of the administrators’ STRS amount.

It is hard to gauge, but I would guess if it was up to those in attendance last night, the 4.9 mill levy would probably pass by a small margin. But, I’m thinking, as I explain here, that when the general public votes on November 2, the levy will probably fail. Organized opposition is always bad news for school levies and, in my view, the Kettering board has needlessly given ammunition to the opposition.

In August, after I interviewed Dr. Schoenlein and wrote, Kettering Schools’ Reduced Tax Request — From 6.9 Mills To 4.9 Mills — Shows “Change Of Philosophy,” my thinking was in line with that expressed by Ashley Webb at this meeting, but, I’m sorry to say, this “pay freeze” claim has pushed me in the opposite direction.

Two articles in today’s DDN give support to the notion that the 4.9 mill Kettering School levy probably will be rejected by Kettering voters in this coming November 2 election.

The first is a letter on the editorial page written by a Kettering resident, Barb Patrick. The letter is entitled, “Teacher Salaries Continue To Rise.”

Ms Patrick asks:

“Why is there never any mention of teacher salaries and benefits, which continue to rise on an annual basis? …  When Kettering Superintendent Schoenlein talks of salary freezes, he never mentions the automatic annual step increases enjoyed by teachers — not exactly a “freeze.”

In the recent Blue Ribbon Report, Dr. Schoenlein, in his letter to residents, manages to use the term “pay freeze” four times:

1. Our Kettering teachers’ association voted to accept a pay freeze as a show of teamwork and understanding as we continue to work through difficult economic times here in our community, across the state and across the country,
2. In the midst of this great academic news, everyone in the Kettering Schools is being asked to do more with less, and our Kettering teachers have taken this theme a step further, agreeing to accept a pay freeze for the 2011-2012 school year after receiving the lowest raises in 25 years in both 2008-2009 and 2209-2010 school years. (1.5% and 1.5%)
3. Our Kettering teachers are highly trained professional educators who continue to produce great test scores in spite of budget cuts, staff reductions and rising class sizes. For them to take a pay freeze is monumental and speaks to their dedication to this school district and this community. No one could ask more of them.
4. The school system has now been recognized as one of the best in the state and the teachers and administrators have agreed to take a pay freeze. I hope the citizens of this great community will appreciate the hard work and the conscientious efforts of the school system to provide a top quality education at a fair and reasonable cost.

Schoenlein really overdoes it — The teachers’ action was “monumental” — “No one could ask more of them.”

The problem is, the correct term is “pay scale freeze.”  The scale was frozen but the pay is not frozen.  As Ms Patrick pointed out in her letter, the pay scale, through frozen, calls for regular “step increases.”

The pay scale gives 70% of the teachers a pretty nice raise, of between 3% to 8%.  The pay scale shows how teachers gain pay increases for longevity as well as for additional training.  The teachers agreed that for the school year 2011-12, this scale would have no additional across the board increases.  The 2009-10 year and the 2010-11 both had 1.5% across the board increases.  It’s fair to say that the pay scale was frozen for 2011-12, but, it’s just plain inaccurate to substitute the term “pay freeze” for the correct term — “pay scale freeze.”

Dangerously, it seems to me, the effort to gain revenue for Kettering correctly is being seen by citizens as a campaign to sell — based on exaggerated claims — not a campaign to educate.

The second article in the DDN is a front page article entitled “No raise likely for Social Security recipients,” and explains that for the second year in a row, there will be no Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Social Security.  Zero inflation, zero COLA.  I imagine the community, particularly in a time of economic recession, would support this COLA standard for teachers.  The community, I don’t think, is ready to describe the teachers’ approval of a pay scale freeze as, “monumental.”

There are many social security residents in Kettering, who are taking a real “pay freeze,” and this headline is a reminder that  passing new taxes in a time of recession would be a challenge under the best of circumstances.

If I were a board member, I would urge the superintendent to initiate quite a different strategy for the remainder of this levy campaign and to develop a presentation for the public that explains and justifies the teachers’ contract.  I would urge him to explain the logic of “step” increases, how the path of a teacher’s career has been established by contract by long tradition, how the contract shows an agreement and a path for a dedicated teacher to realize security and long term rewards. Kettering should be proud that it has policies that have always attracted and kept the best teachers, and the argument to the public should be that this system deserves support. But the argument should also encourage a general discussion about system structure and how the present system might be transformed to something much better.  At least, this is the type of forward looking discussion that a democratic school district should be having — particularly during a time of a publicly determined tax issue when the public is most likely to take a close look at their system of public education.

The controversy about the truthfulness of the claim of a teachers’ “pay freeze,” that Ms Patrick cites in her letter, undermines the confidence of the voters in the school district and helps motivate organized opposition to new taxes.  Controversy and organized opposition — combined with a tough economy that has caused a real “pay freeze” for the elderly — make me inclined to believe the Kettering levy likely will fail.