What to make of “Education Nation,” which took over the magnificent New York Public Library for two days earlier this week and focused a great deal of national attention on a topic most of us care about?   In all, Education Nation consisted of 29 separate segments{{1}}, generally organized around the theme “What It Takes.”  I made it to 15 in person{{2}} and watched three more online.

If you are doing the math, you’ve figured out that cramming all those sessions into two days means they had to be short because this was an event made for television and the web.  And from what I saw online, it worked very well.

Education Nation has come a long way since the first one in 2010, which old NBC hands remember as “Evacuation Nation,” because a torrential downpour and windstorm forced everyone to flee Rockefeller Center for the halls of NBC’s headquarters.

These two days had some highlights and surprises.  I thought at least two stars emerged: Delaware Governor Jack Markell, who spoke forcefully about the importance of early education, and Joshua Starr, the Superintendent of Schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, who argued persuasively for multiple measures to assess both students and teachers.

The best sessions involved some give-and-take among opposing views. In one entitled “A Reality Check on Testing,” Randi Weingarten of the AFT, former Louisiana State Superintendent Paul Pastorek, New York Chancellor Dennis Walcott and the aforementioned Josh Starr disagreed, often eloquently. It helped that the session was skillfully moderated by Rehema Ellis, NBC’s reliable Chief Education Correspondent.  Weingarten told the audience about a new study of test prep (.pdf), contrasting how much time two different districts devote to getting their kids ready to take standardized tests.  Some in the audience gasped when she presented the figures: In one district, students in grades 6-11 spent 100 or more hours on test prep, the equivalent of nearly one month of school. In another district, students in grades 3-8 spent 80 hours on test prep, the equivalent of 16 days of school.  But that was the last time that issue surfaced, unfortunately.

Some sessions were content-rich, particularly the presentation by Professor Caroline Hoxby of Stanford about “Opportunity, Meritocracy and Access to Higher Education.”

She taught what Education Nation called–appropriately–a “Master Class” that showed just how many talented but poor kids fall through the cracks–and what can be done about it.

However, that was as close as Education Nation came to confronting the elephant in the room, poverty.  The disgraceful fact that nearly a quarter of American children are growing up poor simply wasn’t on the agenda, although Marian Wright Edelman, Freeman Hrabowski and John Deasy, the Los Angeles Superintendent, raised the issue during their panels.

Instead, Education Nation focused on getting parents involved, using technology to improve learning, urging students to live healthier lives, and praising students who had overcome their difficult circumstances.  It struck me as a bit like praising people for getting out of a burning building–but not calling the fire department.

In truth, many of the sessions were closer to show-and-tell infomercials than to probing journalism.  The worst offender was “Personalized Learning,” where four panelists{{3}} sang the praises of technology with nary a dissenting word or hint of skepticism.

The tone of “Education Nation” was generally pretty chummy, with very little wave-making. For example, I thought the usually reliable Brian Williams let former Florida Governor Jeb Bush off the hook in their one-on-one conversation. He began with a tough question: “Do we test our kids too much?”  Mr. Bush acted as if he had been asked “Do we need testing?” and went into a polished riff about how “you can’t become a doctor without taking tests, and you can’t get in the military without taking and passing tests,” and so on.  His “life is tough, so stop whining” routine plays well with crowds, but that was not what Brian Williams asked, and I wished he had insisted that the former Governor answer the original question.   Governor Bush also boasted about his state’s approach to high-stakes testing, the FCAT, which has been riddled with problems, and closed with a gratuitous slam on teacher unions.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan got kid gloves treatment from Matt Lauer when he appeared via satellite, so I guess that was the event’s M.O.

Four authors{{4}} participated in the 2-day event, but not Diane Ravitch, whose book, “Reign of Error,” may be outselling the other four books combined.  Her absence infuriated her supporters even more when they realized that one of the authors at Education Nation was a Hollywood screenwriter/film producer and another a first-time author.

Why wasn’t Dr. Ravitch there?  That depends on whom you ask.  A spokesman for Education Nation said that she was sent the general invitation asking her to hold the dates because, he said, “We had her here last year and wanted her here again.”  Later, he said, they asked her to be on a panel, and she declined.

I emailed Diane for her side of the story and got back this explanation:

I received an invitation to sit in the audience.

I received a second invitation to sit in the audience.

Then the list of speakers and panelists was published.

I was not invited.

I heard that many people complained–not me–that I was not invited.

Three days after the list of speakers was announced, I got a call from a producer asking if I would serve on a panel where they had an opening.

I said that they had already published their A list and I wasn’t on it. I don’t like the idea of being an afterthought. I also found it offensive that their A list was heavily weighted with CEOs and right wing governors.

I said no thank you.

So it is true that I was not invited. And true that when they reacted to pressure and invited me, I turned them down.

Here’s the irony: The media room distributed a 5-page fact sheet (.pdf) about the state of American education, including these bold points:

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES ARE AT THEIR HIGHEST LEVEL IN 40 YEARS.
HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION AMONG MINORITY GROUPS HAS IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY.
NUMBER OF STUDENTS ATTENDING COLLEGE CONTINUES TO INCREASE.
U.S. RANKING FOR COLLEGE COMPLETION CONTINUES TO IMPROVE.

Where else could you find that kind of positive information?  (Answer: “Reign of Error”)

Wouldn’t it have been valuable to debate whether these improvements are occurring because of the accountability movement–or in spite of it?  And who better to argue one side of that than Dr. Ravitch?

Many accuse “Education Nation” of tilting to the right and blame Pearson, Exxon-Mobil and the University of Phoenix, three of its five lead sponsors.  That’s not my problem.  My issue with the enterprise is that its tone is almost relentlessly positive, focusing on ‘What It Takes’ but then failing to ask tough follow-up questions like ‘What Stands in the Way?’ or ‘Who Benefits from Failure?’ or any other questions whose answers might afflict the comfortable.

Because Education Nation is purporting to show America that we know ‘What It Takes’ to succeed, then someone must ask logical follow up questions like ‘Why Aren’t We Doing It?’

But, that criticism aside, NBC deserves great praise for the venture, which is, after all, a work in progress. More than any other education conference, Education Nation has the potential to move the needle.  The event has become education’s Super Bowl, which is why I’m already looking forward to attending “Education Nation V” next year.{{5}}

—-

[[1]] 1. Plus three Innovation Competition segments and a bunch of breaks.[[1]]

[[2]] 2. I was part of the final event, a gaggle of journalists ably moderated by Chelsea Clinton.  The panel (Jane Williams, Andy Rotherham, and Rehema Ellis were the other three) was a last-minute addition when the government shutdown prevented the First Lady from making a ‘surprise’ appearance.[[2]]

[[3]]3. Joel Klein of Amplify, Jose Ferreira of Knewton, Diane Tavenner of Summit (Charter) Public Schools and Joel Rose of New Classrooms Innovation Partners.[[3]]

[[4]]4. Amanda Ripley (The Smartest Kids in the World), Anne Henderson (Beyond the Bake Sale), Alison Stewart (First Class: The Legacy of Dunbar, America’s First Black Public High School) and M. Night Shyamalan (I Got Schooled).[[4]]

[[5]]5. If I am invited……[[5]]

How do we–the collective we–feel about teachers? The granddaddy of all surveys about public education is The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher. It established the brand in 1984 and has, to this observer anyway, become better,deeper and more nuanced over time. {{1}}

There are other education surveys, of course.{{2}} The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Scholastic produce an important survey of 40,000 US teachers they call “Primary Sources.”

And every year Gallup and Phi Delta Kappa survey registered US voters on their attitudes toward public education.

Surveys can be misleading or wrong; much depends on the quality of the process, the reliability of the sample and the way the questions are phrased, but, that said, it’s worth surveying the surveys, especially now that there’s a new kid in town, an international (21 countries) survey of public attitudes toward teachers and teaching [.pdf].

The Varkey GEMS{{3}} Foundation reports that it surveyed 1000 representative adults in each of 21 countries{{4}} including the United States. A major conclusion drawn by the Foundation, which is based in the United Kingdom, is that teaching is not held in high enough esteem. “Unless teaching is valued culturally, then the incentive of better pay will not be enough,” the introduction notes, adding: “There are many fictional representations of heroic doctors saving lives on television — from Grey’s Anatomy to ER and House — but hardly any equivalent stories of teachers turning lives around. Every year International Nurses’ Day is celebrated in the UK with a service in Westminster Abbey. President Reagan introduced National Nurses’ Day in the US, which is an opportunity for the media to highlight the achievements of nurses. However, the equivalent in education, World Teachers’ Day, is mostly ignored. We need to think harder, push further, and dream bigger, if we are to find ways of truly celebrating the ‘noble’ profession.”

But the finding that jumps off the page is the overwhelming support for pay-for-performance.

If you don’t have time to go through the document, I offer this review of the highlights regarding teacher status, pay and respect; the role of unions; and that always-interesting question, “Would you want your child to become a teacher?”

STATUS: Teaching ranked 7th of 14 professions across the 21 nations, highest in China, where teachers are most often likened to doctors, and lowest in Israel. In the US, teachers are seen as culturally similar to librarians. These findings struck Andreas Schleicher, the guiding light behind PISA, as questionable because, as he notes in his lukewarm introduction to the survey, Finland ranked 13th {{5}} in public status, while Greece ranked 2nd despite its poor academic performance on PISA. In fact, public status was often inversely correlated with academic performance. Go figure. (See Fig. 11 [.pdf])

TRUST: As the PDK/Gallup survey also reported, teachers are generally trusted. Across the 21 countries, the average “trust” score for teachers was 6.3 out of 10, and no country scored below 5. Finland and Brazil score highest in this category, while Israel, South Korea, Egypt and Japan are the least trusting of teachers.

PAY: Respondents in most countries think teachers should be paid more, but many adults have no clue about how much they actually earn. Respondents in the US are a great example. They think that teachers make about $36,000 a year but believe they should paid about $40,000. However, the true average salary, the study says, is $46,000. This falls in the category of “If they only knew…..”

PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE: In a section that is unrelated to the actual survey, the Varkey GEMS report links PISA scores and teacher pay, and reports that there is little or no correlation between the two. In other words, right now most teachers are not paid according to their students’ performance. That sets up what follows.

The report poses a question: “Should teachers be rewarded in pay according to their pupils’ results?” That elicited an overwhelmingly positive answer in every country. The US was one of eight countries where 80% of respondents said “Yes.{{6}} That’s higher than I’ve seen in other surveys, but, if the question was actually phrased that way without any discussion of the complexities of the issue, how else could it have turned out?

Scroll down to the bottom, and you can read the actual questions. Here’s how the “Pay for Performance” approval numbers were produced, not by a direct question but by this list.

Q11 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of
the following statements?
A. Being an effective teacher requires rigorous training
B. It is too easy to become a teacher
C. The quality of teachers is too variable
D. Pupils respect teachers
E. The teachers in my children’s school are respected
by their pupils
F. Teachers work hard
G. Teachers should be rewarded in pay according to
their pupils’ results
H. Teachers should be rewarded in pay for the effort
they put into their job

Unfortunately the survey does not report how the public feels about pay for effort, or whether people believe that teachers work hard. And wouldn’t you like to know if most people feel it’s too easy to become a teacher?

UNIONS: Do unions have too much influence? The results are mixed, but the interpretation is fascinating. Here’s the relevant passage: “Interestingly, some of the countries with the most recent history of teacher union unrest and direct action, such as Japan, Greece, France and the US, have the highest proportions of people who think teacher unions have too much influence. In contrast, the Czech Republic, China, Egypt and Turkey have the lowest number of people who suggest that teachers unions have too much influence. It is also these countries where teacher unions have played a less important political role.”

They seem to be telling us “The less people know about teacher unions, the more they like them.” And its converse: ”The more they know about unions, the less they like them.” I wonder whether that passage reveals more about the survey’s funders and designers than about the survey results.

To me, the money questions are the personal ones, such as “Would you want your child to be a public school teacher?” According to the survey, only ⅓ of US respondents would ‘probably encourage’ or ‘definitely encourage’ their child to become a teacher. Still, that’s higher than in 14 other countries. At the bottom are Israel, Portugal and Japan, but supposedly only 20% of Finnish adults would encourage their child to teach. Parents in China, South Korea, Turkey and Egypt are most likely to give encouragement to children to become teachers.

Surveys like this one are broad-brush at best. As for this particular study, I am reluctant to place much trust in its conclusions, because I suspect the folks in charge began with some biases about teacher pay and the role of unions.

The nitty-gritty requires a fine-tuned instrument. I want to know whether the chef eats in his or her own restaurant. Do teachers and administrators enroll their own children{{7}} in the schools they work in? If the answers are in the negative, then I would choose another restaurant for my family and would want my grandchildren in some other school.

—–
[[1]]1. I learned recently that the parent company, Met Life, is seriously contemplating abandoning the survey. I hope that’s not true because it really has branded Met Life as a serious and socially-concerned company.[[1]]

[[2]]2. When the US government reopens for business, go here. ‎[[2]]

[[3]]3. Varkey GEMS seem to have some skin in the game. From the company website: “GEMS Education is the largest kindergarten to grade 12 private education provider in the world.” and “GEMS Education is an international K-12 education company that owns and operates high performing schools. It also offers consulting services to both the public and private sectors. For over 50 years, GEMS Education has provided high quality education to hundreds of thousands of children around the world.
GEMS has a global network of award winning schools which provide high quality holistic education to more than 142,000 students from 151 countries. It employs over 11,000 education professionals, specialists and staff. GEMS has a world class leadership team that combines business and education expertise from around the globe.
The GEMS Education school model is unique in the world because it offers a broad range of curricula across a range of tuition fees making private education more accessible to the broader community. GEMS Education also supports Governments’ education reform agenda by working with Ministries of Education to lift school performance and improve the standards and expertise in government schools across the globe.”[[3]]

[[4]]4. This was not the normal face-to-face or telephone survey but instead a computer-based process. That process was cheaper and more efficient (only 4 weeks), the survey report explains.[[4]]

[[5]]5. Every other report I have come across says that teachers and teaching in Finland are highly respected.[[5]]

[[6]]6. In Egypt the figure was over 90%, while in Israel, China, Brazil and New Zealand the figure was over 80%. The Czech Republic and Finland hit an even 80%. Portugal and Turkey were in the high 70s.[[6]]

[[7]]7. I just returned from a school where virtually all the teachers with school-age children enroll their children there. Watch for it on the NewsHour soon.[[7]]

The words ‘hero’, ‘heroic’ and ‘heroism’ are overused in America. Think, for example, how often those words are tossed around in reports about athletics, as if running with a football and dunking a basketball were acts of heroism.  People talk about ‘everyday heroes,’ as if doing your job every day–even a tough job like teaching in the inner city–was heroic behavior.{{1}}

We need to be more discerning in our use of those words.  We shouldn’t be so quick to crown people as heroes, because doing so dilutes the meaning of heroism.

Deep down, a lot of people realize this.  I say this because nowadays the word ‘genuine’ is often attached to the word, as in “She’s a genuine hero.”

Most of us will never–knock wood–know if we have what it takes to be a hero.  We will never face a raging fire, roaring flood waters, or a crazed gunman and have to make a split-second, life-or-death decision.

The teachers and administrators at Sandy Hook Elementary Schools–those who lived and those who lost their lives–are heroes.  They exemplify the best in the education profession, and they remind us of how good and strong people can be.

Those were my words on Saturday night in Washington while presenting an award from the Academy of Education Arts and Sciences to the teachers of Newtown. I have no doubt about their heroism. When they were tested, they responded heroically.

But I also have no doubt that we toss around that word, hero, far too easily. For example, Ted Cruz, the US Senator from Texas, is a hero to some on the extreme right because of his strident opposition to Obamacare.  Over on the left, Diane Ravitch is a hero to those who share her views on what is happening in public education.  Since when does taking a strong public stand qualify as an act of heroism?  Call them ‘crusaders’ or ‘principled leaders’ or some other term of approval if you wish, but not heroes.

I believe many people are uncomfortable with the way ‘hero’ is used.  Here’s my reasoning: When a noun needs modifiers, it’s a clear signal that the word has lost its original meaning. Take ‘politician’ as an example.  This word is rarely unadorned these days. Someone is a ‘thoughtful politician,’  ‘unconventional politician’ ‘not your typical politician,’ ‘a well-respected politician,’ or (shudder) ‘an honest politician.’  Enough said.

I think that is what has happened with ‘hero.’  Because of our culture of excess and a glut of ‘heroes,’ the noun is routinely modified.  We have ‘genuine heroes,’ ‘everyday heroes,’ ‘unassuming heroes,’ ‘hero worship’ and–of course–’Super heroes.’

So I am wondering how many of us have (genuine) heroes in our lives.  Do you?  Are there living people you identify as your heroes?  The only person who comes easily to my mind is Nelson Mandela.

An older friend told me that he didn’t have any living heroes, and he doubted whether most people did these days, because of the 24-hour news cycle and the power of the internet to allow everyone to dig up dirt on anyone of prominence.  No one can keep their feet of clay (or their sex tape) hidden for long, he said.

Some say we need more heroes in our lives, but I am more comfortable with “role model” than with ‘hero.’  There’s a long list of role models whose positions, behavior or humanity I wish to emulate.  I respect and admire these men and women, even though I know they are not perfect human beings.

Perhaps I am just getting crotchety as I get older, but I would like to see us tone down our language.  I am pretty certain that the same people who idolize Ted Cruz or Diane Ravitch are equally vehement in their disdain for anyone who dares to disagree with their hero (and them).  These people inhabit a comic book world without ambiguity where heroes require villains.  Our society makes it easy to live in a black-and-white world without nuances–you can watch either Fox or MSNBC, but not both!

Unfortunately, the hero/villain polarization can cause us to lose sight of all the good, decent (and flawed) people who are trying to make the world a better place.  Polarization not only doesn’t move the ball forward; it’s a step backward.

In his speech accepting the Harold W. McGraw Jr. Prize in Education Tuesday night, Dave Levin of KIPP reminded us that fixing public education was “messy” work.  Extreme positions weren’t effective, he told us.  “Should we use test scores to assess students and teachers?” he asked?  “Yes,” he said, “but we have to have lots of other measures as well.”  He called it “the messy middle” where the work is hard and the job is never done.

I know what Levin is talking about.  My colleagues and I spent 6 ½ long years documenting the struggle to rebuild New Orleans’ schools after Hurricane Katrina and the flooding.  On October 22, “Rebirth,” our 1-hour film will premiere nationwide on Netflix (and will be live-streamed for 24 months in nine languages).  I am sure it will inflame those on the extremes, both left and right, because it fails to either completely endorse what is happening there or to condemn it outright.  It’s that “messy middle” that Dave Levin was talking about.

There are no silver bullets, Levin said, and I agree.  Moreover, searching for them, like hero-worship, is a waste of precious time and energy.

—-

[[1]]1. CNN has an annual competition for the Top 10 unknown everyday heroes of the year.  The winners for 2013 will be revealed on October 10th.[[1]]

Education’s numbers are impressive. More than 50 million children are safely enrolled in public schools as you read this. Another 5.2 million are attending private schools, and an estimated 1.5 million are being homeschooled.

We will spend close to $600 billion on public education this year, roughly $11,800 per child. What are we getting for the money? In her new book, Reign of Error, Diane Ravitch argues that most of our public schools are better than they have ever been. As you may also have heard, however, Amanda Ripley in The Smartest Kids in the World argues that our schools are not measuring up, not when compared to schools in other countries.{{1}}

Dueling arguments aside, I think this school year is going to bring into bold relief some disconnects between and among various interest groups in education, starting with the Common Core. Inside schools, everyone is talking about the Common Core National Standards, the math and English standards developed outside of Washington, DC and adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia. However, outside of schools, most American voters–62%–say that they have never even heard of it! That’s one of the findings of the annual Gallup/PDK poll on education released two weeks ago. In fact, 55% of parents of school-age children say they haven’t heard of it! And most of those who recognize the term say they don’t really understand it, meaning that this highly-touted reform embraced by policy makers has a tough hill to climb.

In fact, if the Gallup/PDK poll is to be believed, the American public is not particularly happy with the nation’s education policy makers’ support for more standardized testing and for using student test scores to judge teachers and principals. The gulf between the two groups is wide: for example, the public has changed its mind about how test results are used, but policy makers have not. In 2012 52% of the public said it was a good idea to use test scores to evaluate teachers, but one year later only 41% say it makes sense. That’s a huge change. Are policy makers listening?

Gallup/PDK asked whether more testing is helping or hurting education. Again there’s been a major shift. In 2012 only 28% said more testing was hurting education; that number jumped to 36% this year. Today only 22% believe that testing is making education better, a drop of six percentile points.

Policy makers may be wringing their hands about the deplorable state of public education, but in 2013 parents and the public gave local schools their highest grades ever, with 53% giving their local school, the one they presumably know the most about, either an A or a B. (As they do every year, respondents gave schools across the country a grade of C or lower.)

The poll reports that 70% oppose vouchers, a huge increase over the 55% who opposed vouchers in 2012. Support for public charter schools remained consistently high, with about two-thirds supporting them.

The most striking disconnect between parents/general public and policymakers is in the area of teachers. Unless you have been living under a rock, you know that most policy makers do not trust teachers, and that starts at the top. The federal government’s “Race to the Top” requires states to evaluate teachers based on test scores if they want federal “Race” dollars or a waiver from No Child Left Behind. Some states have jumped on that bandwagon with alacrity, most recently Tennessee, which has created a system much like that imposed upon Washington, DC’s public schools by former Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee.{{2}}

In sharp contrast, the Gallup/PDK poll reports that more than 70% of Americans have trust and confidence in the women and men who teach in public schools. And the percentage is even higher for Americans under the age of 40.

Who are our teachers? One of every 100 Americans is a public school teacher, 3.3 million in all. The average teacher will earn $56,000 this year, which–adjusted for inflation–is only 3% more than the average teacher earned 22 years ago, in 1991!

The poll suggests to me that the ongoing ‘war on teachers’{{3}} may have taken a critical turn in the teachers’ favor, in the hearts and minds of parents and other adult Americans.

The challenge now is to change the way the folks at the top think and behave, because public policies based on mistrust are counter-productive and seem to be driving good people out of the classroom.

That exodus we can measure through exit interviews. What we cannot keep track of is the number of talented young people who pick up on the more or less ‘official’ denigration of the profession and come to the conclusion that teaching is not for them.

—————-

[[1]]1. Later this month I will review both books.[[1]]

[[2]]2. I have reported at length about the flaws in that approach.[[2]]

[[3]]3. I write about it in The Influence of Teachers.[[3]]

It was the other Tony Bennett who sang that song, of course. But former Indiana and Florida state superintendent Tony Bennett probably ought to be asking himself that question.  As Tom LoBianco of the Associated Press reported, Mr. Bennett manipulated his own school grading system so that a favorite charter school–run by a major financial supporter of his–got a grade of A instead of the C that it deserved.

“They need to understand that anything less than an A for Christel House compromises all of our accountability work,” Bennett emailed his Chief of Staff (who now is Indiana Governor Mike Pence’s chief lobbyist).  All this went down less than a year ago, just before Bennett was voted out of office.  He was immediately hired to head Florida’s public schools, a position he just vacated after LoBianco reported his secret manipulations.

The blogosphere has been going wild, and those on the left are positively salivating. Mr. Bennett is the driving force behind Chiefs for Change, the right-leaning group of state superintendents of education.  That group’s name has morphed into “Cheats for Change,” “Chiefs for (Grade) Change,” “Cheating Chiefs for Change,” and on and on.  They see this as another skirmish in the on-going battle being waged over/against public education and are hoping that this fiasco will help more people see the folly of demonizing teachers and traditional public schools.  That’s their ‘big picture,’ and they may be seeing things correctly, but let’s look more closely at what happened in Indiana.

Mr. Bennett screwed up on several fronts.  He changed the rules for a charter school but did not act to help some traditional public schools in essentially the same situation.  He did everything in secret, apparently forgetting that, as an elected public servant, his official business was neither secret nor private.  And, judging from his language, he was motivated by ego (he had promised the school’s founder, Christel DeHaan, an A!) and his fervently-held privatization ideology.

It’s not a stretch to call this behavior hypocritical.  Mr. Bennett was happy to be known as Mr. Accountability–until his own accountability system turned around and bit him in the butt.  Then, rather than eating a helping of crow and facing up to possibility that he might have created a lousy system, Mr. Accountability cheated.  Pride goeth before a fall.

But what about Mr. Bennett’s ‘accountability work’?  How trustworthy was it?  Matt DiCarlo of the Shanker Institute examined Mr. Bennett’s school grading system and found out that poverty, not quality, was the chief determinant of a school’s grade. “Almost 85 percent of the schools with the lowest poverty rates receive an A or B, and virtually none gets a D or F,” he wrote.  More than half of the schools with the highest percentages of kids living in poverty received “an F or D, compared with about 22 percent across all schools.”

I am reminded of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” particularly its Seventh Commandment. That final commandment originally read ‘All Animals Are Equal.” However, by the end of the allegory it has morphed into “All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others.”  Rules are for other people, Mr. Bennett?

It’s unclear whether what happened in Indiana amounts to a “Paying for Grades” scandal.  Ms. DeHaan, a major supporter of Republican causes, donated $130,000 to Mr. Bennett’s campaigns, and apparently an additional $15,000 after the grade change.

(By the way, how about a shout-out for the Freedom of Information Act, a tool which allows reporters like LoBianco access to documents. Where would we be without FOIA?  Where would our democracy be?)

Another intrepid reporter, Scott Elliott of the Indianapolis Star, has written extensively about the charter school in question, Christel House. After visiting it, he reported that it is in fact a darn good school.  Elliott writes about how educators there have gone the extra mile to see that students have transportation–a huge issue in poor communities.

So to summarize: A good school gets a bad grade, as do some traditional public schools. In response, the state superintendent bends the rules in secret, rather than air out the problems inherent in his own approach to grading schools.  Mr. Bennett is a flawed human being, but so are we all. And so let’s not keep the focus on him.  Let’s look instead at the idea of grading schools.

We need an accountability system, but it must measure quality and effort, not poverty or some characteristics than an ideologue might love or hate.  It’s probably too much to insist on a single letter grade; students get marks in English, Social Studies, Algebra and so forth–why shouldn’t a school get multiple grades?

Now ask yourself what a school should be graded on. How important are scores on bubble tests?  How much should graduation rates count?  Attendance and truancy?

What else counts? How about ‘hours of recess per week’ and ‘hours of art and music’ and ‘time devoted to project-based learning’ (more is better)?  How about counting ‘hours spent on test-prep” and ‘teacher turnover,’ where less is better?

We need to measure what we value when it comes to public education.  In public, Mr. Bennett, in public.

And what kind of fools are we if we fail to see what happened in Indiana as a wake-up call?

Please take this forced-choice, 2-question test before continuing.

1. The primary business of public schools is to produce:

A. Educated students
B. Knowledge

2. Which more accurately describes the structure of public schools?

A. Teachers are ‘labor,’ and administrators are ‘management’
B. Students are ‘labor,’ and teachers are ‘management’

My hunch is that many of you selected ‘A’ as the better answer to both questions. After all, that’s the traditional model of school in which teachers teach and students learn. That is often known, pejoratively, as ‘the factory model’ in which teachers, the workers, teach facts and figures to students, who emerge from this assembly line after 12 years as ‘educated.’

Would most American businessmen and women select ‘A’ as the correct answers?

Probably, and therein lies the great paradox, or perhaps the confounding contradiction: Unhappy with the current system, American business devotes energy and money trying to ‘reform’ it. Someone needs to tell them that what they are doing is akin to buying faster ponies for the pony express. Faster ponies won’t get the mail delivered on time, and ‘reformed’ schools won’t provide the workforce that business needs.

(Nor will ‘reformed’ schools produce the healthy citizenry our nation needs, which means that business is on our side. They just don’t realize it–yet.)

Here’s what we know: Public school graduates do not possess the skills and capabilities that matter most to the CEOs of GE, duPont, Xerox, Amazon, JPMorgan/Chase and about 100 other leading companies. As a consequence, American companies are having difficulty finding the skilled workers they need. By some estimates at least 40% of corporations are leaving positions unfilled or are exporting the jobs they cannot fill at home. At a meeting of The Business Council in Chicago in May, duPont CEO Ellen J. Kullman spoke of having to screen over 600 résumés to find a few candidates worth interviewing (let alone hiring).

What does business value? For nine out of ten CEOs, the essential skills and capabilities are ‘work ethic,’ ‘teamwork,’ ‘decision making,’ ‘critical thinking,’ and ‘computer literacy.’ That’s according to a survey of 134 CEOs done by The Business Council and the Conference Board, whose ranks include most of America’s corporations. (101 CEOs responded.) Aristotle taught us that ‘we are what we repeatedly do.’ Applying that lesson to schools is simple enough: students ought to be engaged in activities that teach or reinforce those desired skills.

Unfortunately, these five skills are not taught in America’s classrooms. In fact, of the nine most valued skills, only two–‘basic reading and math’ and ‘writing and communications’–are school subjects. (The CEOs ranked them 6th and 7th.)

How well do the schools teach those two skills? Not very, the CEOs report. Asked to rate the capability of their current workforce, just 23% rated it as ‘very capable’ in basic reading and math; the ‘very capable’ rating for writing and communication drops to 15.5%.

In other words, schools are not emphasizing most of the skills businesses need, and the ones that school do stress–reading, math, writing and communication–they are not teaching effectively.

Why don’t our schools teach what business wants? It’s not as if American business hasn’t been involved in, and generally supportive of, public education at the local and national levels. The problem lies in the (now outdated) perception that teachers are the workers and students their product. That view must be scrapped before matters improve.

Here’s a brief history: In the last part of the 20th century, “school-business partnerships” were in vogue. These locally driven efforts often involved volunteers from businesses helping out in the schools, while their companies donated equipment and materials. When “partnerships” fell out of favor–probably because the results weren’t clear–they were often replaced by internship programs that put young people into ‘the world of work.’

Today many business leaders–impatient for results–support charter schools or charter school organizations like KIPP. Others put their prestige and dollars behind Teach for America, College Track, the Posse Foundation and other tightly focused programs.

The imprint of business is clearly visible at the national level. Although only two business leaders and one small businessman (a dentist) served on the 18-member commission that produced “A National at Risk” in 1983, its language and message could easily have been written by the US Chamber of Commerce. Its warning–our schools were ‘drowning in a rising tide of mediocrity’–sparked the school reform movement that continues today.

And while the first President Bush hosted the inaugural National Summit on Education in 1989, business soon took over. Summits #2 and #3 were convened by IBM CEO Louis V. Gerstner at IBM headquarters in Armonk, NY, with President Clinton an invited guest. These meetings and subsequent National Commissions coalesced around a central theme: the schools’ failure to produce enough high-caliber graduates was threatening our country’s economic leadership.

To business’ way of thinking, graduates were ‘product’ in a straightforward factory model paradigm: teachers were given raw material–kids–to turn into productive, capable young adults. In that factory model, teachers are the workers, so it’s not surprising that business leaders–management by definition–have not been natural allies of teacher unions.

If schools are going to improve dramatically, everyone–but especially the business community–needs to realize is that the old ‘factory model’ paradigm is no longer valid. Because of the information revolution, students–not teachers—must be the work force. They must become ‘knowledge workers,’ and their ‘product’ is knowledge.

In this new paradigm, teachers are now part of management, a concept that some people may have difficulty dealing with.

Here’s one way to understand what has changed. Before the internet era, schools served three primary functions: they (along with libraries) were the repository of knowledge–kids had to go there because that’s where knowledge was stored. Schools also socialized children–that’s where boys and girls, Catholics, Jews and Protestants, Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans got to know each other. And, of course, schools provided custodial care so parents could work.

Today only #3 is unchanged–working parents still need a safe place to leave their children. But schools are no longer ‘the repository of knowledge,’ because today’s children swim in a sea of information, 24/7. However, ‘information’ is not knowledge, and so in this new paradigm our schools have a new duty and challenge: they must help teach young people how to sift through the flood of information and determine what is true. That’s the ‘work’ that students–now knowledge workers–must be doing, formulating questions and finding their answers. Unfortunately, our outmoded schools are little more than ‘answer factories’ where students regurgitate (often on bubble tests) what they have been told.

As for socialization, it’s not an exaggeration to say that kids have access to hundreds of apps that serve that purpose. It’s like pen pals on steroids. So ‘socialization’ takes on new meaning with our children, who are, in the popular lexicon, ‘digital natives.’ Today schools need educators who understand that their job is to transform these digital natives into digital citizens, not an insignificant distinction. These young digital citizens can use technology to create knowledge–their work. But when they are not encouraged and allowed to do this, many will–out of boredom or malice–use the dazzling variety of tools we call ‘social media’ to harass and abuse the most vulnerable among them.

If we allow schools to be regurgitation factories where students are mere product; if we judge teachers simply based on the test scores of their ‘product;’ and if we allow schools to ignore the awesome potential of technology, then we will have schools where the brightest students are bored and the most vulnerable are bullied.

In this new paradigm, where students are knowledge workers, what should schools look like? Recall Aristotle’s lesson: “We are what we repeatedly do.” If we do not want adults who do little more than regurgitate, then they should not do that day after day after day in classrooms. Instead, they must be developing the skills and capabilities that we want them to have as adults. It’s a tall order: Students must master the ‘basic skills of numeracy, reading and writing and the ‘new basics’ that include speaking persuasively, listening carefully and critically, working collaboratively, and the use of modern technology.

While this new paradigm, students as ‘knowledge workers,’ can be seen in hundreds of schools, the fact is we have nearly 100,000 public schools. We are a long way from the tipping point. Are we moving, educationally speaking, in the right direction?

We might be. America has embarked on a huge national experiment called the Common Core, a set of common standards for math and English embraced by all but five states. This moment of seminal change offers an opportunity for American business to speak up and demand a ‘common core’ where students repeatedly do what will serve them in good stead as adult citizens, parents and workers.

No one needs to create a curriculum out of whole cloth to teach decision-making, teamwork, a strong work ethic, communication and critical thinking. Those skills are fundamental to most extra-curricular activities: playing sports, working in theatrical productions, playing in a musical group, and producing the school newspaper, radio or TV program or yearbook. In those activities (let’s get smart and call them ‘co-curricular’), students are clearly the workers, and their work products are tangible.

That new/old thinking–”We are what we repeatedly do”–can transform public education, make school much more interesting and challenging for students, reverse that rising tide of mediocrity….and cure American business’ persistent headache.