National School Reform Faculty

Letter to ABC/"Stupid in America"
Date: January 17 - February 7, 2006
Listserv: Coaches

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:42 PM
John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 did a report on the worst practices in American education last week. His report aired during the Winter Meeting. I resolved to let him know about our work, in the hope that he would someday choose to tell the rest of the story. Scroll down to see the letter I sent him.

January 2006

John Stossel
20/20
ABC News
7 W. 66th Street
New York, NY 10023

Dear Mr. Stossel:

I accept the truths you revealed about some aspects of American education on your broadcast of January 13, 2006, Stupid in America. The irony is that I watched your show while attending the Winter Meeting of the National School Reform Faculty (NSRF) in Denver, Colorado. Three hundred teachers and administrators representing 1000 others gathered to deepen the work we do with children in every corner of our country. We studied and discussed the implications in our classrooms of a text on equity traps; we ‘tuned’ curriculum, consulted on professional dilemmas, and we examined student work—all focused on improved teaching and learning. This annual meeting is a continuation of weekly and monthly meetings called Critical Friends Groups (CFGs), an initiative focused on success for all students.

Your images were vivid, compelling, and damning; your outrage is deserved in the stories you told. However, to quote radio commentator Paul Harvey, I urge you to study “the rest of the story.” There are highly educated, passionate, skilled teaching professionals who work with great integrity to improve student learning. And, despite you show’s focus, you certainly must recognize that your story represents one slice of a very large pie. Your journalistic integrity undoubtedly forces you to ask, What else? What don’t I know? Whose voice is not represented? To answer these questions, Mr. Stossel, I urge you to “Give me a break.” Twist the kaleidoscope to allow for a different pattern to be revealed. Another truth of American education is that there are many networks of reform. I am a member of the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES), an organization founded in 1984 by Dr. Ted Sizer. That core organization developed another emergent organization, the Annenburg Institute for School Reform, which then led to the National School Reform Faculty. I have enclosed articles from that organization to give you a picture of some of the work happening behind the scenes in America’s schools.

Your report used data to support your findings. I urge you, as a serious journalist, to hold yourself accountable to a high standard of reflection and analysis. What other pictures could you provide that would add texture to perhaps the most complex social system in our country?

I respect your work and I know that as an educator and representative of a broad network of caring professionals, we ask for and deserve your respect and attention.

Sincerely,
Peggy, NH

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:48 PM
Bravo, Peggy. I echo your sentiments & wish that I had written this very eloquent, powerful letter. I was not at the Winter Meeting but you can be sure I had the same thoughts you expressed.
Lana, PA

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:49 PM
Yeah, Peggy.
Thank you for being an eloquent voice and for affirming the high standard that should filter through every profession, maybe especially journalism, with its ability to shape and impact so many. And for following through with action, well thank you for that, too.
Teri, MA

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:00 PM
Thanks, Teri. I mostly just wanted to avoid yet another pile of "to-do." Thought I would try a novel approach and actually do something instead! Wish you lived next door....
Peggy, NH

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:07 PM
Go, Peggy! Thank you for this advocacy and inspiration on a rainy, cold afternoon. May I share your letter with others in my life who hold Stossel's point of view?
Edorah, VT

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:07 PM
ditto and kudos
Michaelann, TX

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:23 PM
Thank you Peggy for your eloquent response to Mr. Stossel's report! It can be so discouraging to hear only the negative about education in America. Your letter focuses on some of the positive changes that are taking place. Alba, MA

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:58 PM
KUDOS! Peggy. Unfortunately, people thrive on negative journalism. Keep up the positive.
Martha, NM

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:06 PM
Thanks for representing the rest of us! I saw about five minutes of Stossel’s report. I confess that I fell asleep at the first commercial. You were generous in your assessment of his “desire” to tell the whole story. He has made a name for himself as an exasperated consumer.

Please let us know if you get a response.
Debbie, PA

Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:30 AM
Thank you, Peggy. I did not see this program but have been hearing
about it from many educators. I am so glad that you took the time
to speak to this issue and our work with such passion. Thank you,
Tina, VT

Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:21 AM
Bravo, Peggy!
Your writing, insight and courage are exemplary. Thank you for taking the time to respond to Mr. Stossel.

I am remembering a workshop with Bill Nave after his study of our work was published. There was a lively discussion during which Bill and the many educators in attendance agreed that we should contact journalists and our representatives in public office to get the word out about our very important work. “Going public” is a great way to go.
Thank you, Peggy.
Jan, RI

Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:58 PM
I think we need to explore this idea of going public some more. Peggy’s letter stands as a reminder for me of the many times/opportunities I/we have missed to tell another piece of the/our story.

Debbie, PA

Friday, January 20, 2006 12:46 AM
As a CES National Board member I cannot agree with you more. I am on the advocacy sub committee. No one but us will spread the "news" of our good work. Our charge is to change the face of American public schooling for the better. We need to do what we can to be more "known" by the public at large. Our work is monumental and not enough people know about us. Wouldn't it be great for 20/20 to do a story on the work and growth of Critical Friends? Please let me know of your progress.
Lisa, AZ

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:39 AM
Bravo, Peggy!! Way to go. Thank you for sending to letter to tell the other side of the story.
Love
Grace, RI

Friday, January 20, 2006 11:10 AM
While I am grateful to Peggy for her letter, I find myself wondering how many other stories, or sides of "the story" still need to be told.

I'm thinking here about the stories of my colleagues who are less vocal than I am, perhaps because they are colleagues of color who have often not been heard. I'm also thinking about the stories of so many students and families who I didn't spend enough time listening to because my assumption was that I knew better than they about their needs.

So, while I applaud Peggy's efforts on our behalf, I'm wondering how we can surface all of the stories in our schools and learn from them.

This wondering on my part was vague, at best, until I had a conversation with a colleague of color, who was not as put off as I was by John Stossel's approach. Her reaction gave me pause and made me realize, yet again, the way my lens, as a white teacher, affects "my story" and my judgment.
Debbie, PA

Friday, January 20, 2006 11:44 AM
Debbie, I'd love to hear more about your conversation with your colleague who was not put off by Stossel's approach. Can you give us more details?
Stevi, CO

Friday, January 20, 2006 12:00 PM
Hi Stevi,
It was really just a question about there being just two sides to the story. Also, while I fell asleep during the report, my colleague was riveted. These differences made me think again about my initial willingness to just dismiss Stossel.

I still question Stossel's aims. I don't get the sense he really cares, and I'd love to see a more all sided approach. However, I also know that despite my best efforts, I was still losing too many kids. So I'm thinking now that a wider lens, one that really valued multiple takes or stories about the same reality would have made my best efforts better.

Since I'm out of the classroom now, I'll have to put this wondering to the test through my coaching and my research.
Debbie, PA

Friday, January 20, 2006 2:29 PM
I love that my teeny, tiny action has caused ripples in our pond. I wrote as one consumer, not really as an official of a reform organization (because I am not). I have always thought that we should have an active political arm. If my letter results in that happening--lots of formal contacts to media outlets, op-ed pieces in Newsweek and the NY Times--yay!

Meanwhile, if you want to respond to me, please use my personal email, so that we do not clutter up the listserv

Thanks, everybody. Polish your pens or sharpen your fingers and draft a letter to somebody today.
Peggy, NH

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:23 PM
Many of you have probably read Friedman's book - The World is Flat - by now. I think the effects of Peggy’s letter (which I applaud) really show how flat the world of education has become. Listserves. blogs, and other kinds of technology allow us to begin, build, and maintain momentum for an issue. Peggy's voice has certainly got many of us moving - lets maintain it. I for one am bringing the 20/20 episode to my faculty to discuss ... this probably would not have happened without her letter. She has touched a lot of educators without even knowing it ... powerful!
Theo, MI

Saturday, January 21, 2006 7:27 AM
The letters in response to you aren't clutter-they are the inciters for change! Please keep them on the list-serv to continue to the metamorphosis in the making.
Elissa, NY

Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:29 AM
A friend forwarded me this link today that really takes John Stossel to task. Especially provocative for those who did not catch the 20/20 broadcast:

STUPID DISCOURSE ABOUT IMPROVING PUBLIC SCHOOLS How stupid is the public discourse about America‚s public schools?

Consider John Stossel‚s amazingly stupid recent hour-long 20/20 episode.In fairness, Stossel raises a string of worthwhile questions in his addled report. How well do American children read and cipher compared to kids from other countries? That‚s a question well worth asking -- and Stossel asks it early on. "Stupid in America" also asks a series of worthwhile policy questions. For example, would expanded "school choice" improve public education? Early and often, Stossel swears that it would. And Stossel asks other worthwhile questions during this remarkable program.However, Daily Howler takes Stossel to task for using shoddy questioning and research, and for oversimplifying complex issues. Is Stossel conducting journalism or a jeremiad? ABC News insults the public interest by airing a ludicrous show of this type.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011706.shtml
Peggy, NH

Saturday, January 21, 2006 11:12 AM
Having recently seen The Best of Youth, an extraordinary six hour Italian television mini-series, I wonder if anyone has done a similar comparison of U.S.and European TV? I think we would see parallels to the selected scenes Stossel airs. Given that many of our students spend an almost equal amount of time watching TV as they do in the classroom, we might (and have), with as much validity, blame US TV for their stupidity. As a matter of fact (in addition having a clear political agenda of promoting school choice and entrepreneurializing public education) perhaps there's a bit of revenge involved in this broadcast against educators who rail at the media for stupifying our children. We should be putting cameras in our students' hands if we want powerful and hard-hitting journalism about school effectiveness.
Susan, CA

Saturday, January 21, 2006 12:44 PM
Hi Peggy
Kudos to you for your integrity and courage!!

I, too, watched the report and was greatly disappointed. Our story does need to be told. We need to tell it. That is why research and documentation is so important.
Thanks,
Lois, IL

Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:54 AM
Hello everyone.

Some time ago, Educators Writing for Change* (NSRF educators and coaches) sent their book (At the Heart of Teaching: A Guide to Reflective Practice) to Julia Steiny,* a journalist who writes for education, government and private enterprises.

Ms. Steiny did not respond at that time, but when she did a couple of years later, she called to ask about the “Critical Friends Group thing.” She was interested, if possible, in observing a CFG at work.

I was coaching a Superintendents CFG. I raised the possibility of their being observed by a journalist. Quite frankly, I held little hope of their agreeing. Their meetings were confidential and resulted in intense conversations about topics concerning improvement, reform, critical incidents and moral and ethical dilemmas in their school districts.

After discussion, the superintendents agreed to be observed. An agenda was developed. It was decided that a topic for discussion would be chosen that was important to the practice of the superintendents but one that would not compromise the faculty, students or staff in their districts.

The Southern Rhode Island Superintendents in this CFG were open-minded, knowledgeable and bent on improvement. Their discussions were stimulating, sometimes incredible, filled with a variety of perspectives that resulted in exploration and discovery. I have never left a meeting of the Superintendents Critical Friends Group without being awed by their honesty and courage.

Before Ms. Steiny arrived at the meeting where she would first observe the discussion and protocols then join in an open feedback conversation, the superintendents discussed their feelings. There was little apprehension, but a great deal of enthusiasm for this process. I was terrified.

At the end of the agenda, Ms. Steiny remained with us for an engaging conversation about the state of education. Her background and insights were impressive. Her questions were probing. Her opinions were forthright. The superintendents responded in kind. The feedback conversation was riveting.

She published her reaction to the observation and her extremely positive thoughts about Critical Friends Groups and, in particular, a group of Superintendents who had been willing to go public with the process.

It was a memorable experience.

*Educators Writing for Change (EWC), authors of “At the Heart of Teaching: A Guide to Reflective Practice” is a group of writers made up of Grace McEntee, Joe Check, Peggy Silva, Jon Appleby, Joanne Dowd Pettingill, Simon Hole and Jan Grant.

*Julia Steiny is a former member of the Providence, Rhode Island School Board; she consults and writes for a number of education, government and private enterprises. Her weekly column appears in the Providence Journal.
Jan, RI

Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:51 PM
Hello Deborah and Everyone,
Deborah, I want to be sure I understand your point because I think I agree wholeheartedly with you.

Are you saying that while NSRF may be moving in the right direction, there are still many challenges; too many of are school's are, in fact, failing to teach too many of our students?

I have to admit that I did not see Stossel's report, but considering the nature of journalistic infotainment, I am not surprised that it was sensationalized. At their heart, shows like Stossel's are about sales, not the thorough exploration of complex issues. Considering that, however, is it possible to see the challenge implicit in reports like his?

While I, like you, appreciate Peggy's letter (thanks Peggy), I'm not sure I want to challenge Stossel or others to see our 'successes.' Instead, I would like to challenge him and others to use their resources to dig deeper and really understand the failings of our schools. In other words, I want them to help us in our reform efforts, not just recognize them.

Further, just for the sake of discussion, what if reports like Stossel's bring resources to school's that need them, or shift public opinion so that more people vote to fund schools on the local level? I realize that I am walking a tightrope here, because such reports might just as easily give people an excuse NOT to vote for school budgets. The point is, however, that nothing is simple here. At the end of the day, perhaps our primary goal in regards to journalists (and our own writing) should be to illuminate that fact with the goal of furthering reform.
Steve, NH

Sunday, January 22, 2006 3:56 PM
Hi Steve,
Yes, one of my points concerns the large numbers of children we are failing to reach. Another related piece of it is the need for multiple voices and stories to paint an accurate portrait of what does and does not work in our classrooms and why. I stress the need for multiple perspectives because so many teachers, myself included, are separated from the reality of our students' lives by class, race, national origin etc.

Having said all of that, I am all for celebrating breakthroughs as long as we are willing to trouble our "successes" to look for those who are not succeeding.

Based on what I saw of Stossel's report it felt more like bashing than a serious inquiry, but it can certainly be used to start a rich conversation.
Debbie, PA

Monday, January 23, 2006 7:00 PM
In light of our recent conversation about the "20/20" piece, I thought I would share this link from a "sister" listserv.

----- Original Message -----
From: william ferriter
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:24 PM
Subject: [TEACHERLEADER] Follow the Money, Stupid!
Hey Guys,
This interesting article explaining Stossel's 20/20 piece on schools came
across my inbox today:
http://www.educationnews.org/writers/daniel/ABC_20-20_voucher_cheerleaders.htm

Turns out ABC and its sister/parent companies have inherent links with
political agendas...surprise, surprise!

I guess my question is will anything we do as teacher leaders ever matter to
anyone when talking about school reform when we are competing against major corporations and players with far more political influence than we have?
This reminds me of a conversation that I had with a political lobbyist once
who admitted that dirty dealing is a regular part of his game. His
reasoning: Everyone is dirty, so to get something done, you have to be
dirty. As long as it advances your ideas, who cares how it gets finished.
Bill

Regards,
Bill Ferriter
National Board Certified since 1997!
Cary, North Carolina
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Linda, FL

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:41 PM
Dear Lois, It is so wonderful to "hear" your voice on email. I have missed you so much. Hope you are continuing to heal and grow stronger. Love,
Frances, GA

Friday, February 3, 2006 12:59 PM
I am a CFG coach in SC and a portion of the 20/20 story centered on inequities in our state.

Our "excellent" governor appeared in the report championing school choice. He is a major proponent of vouchers so there was a hidden agenda there from the start. I just received this editorial and thought it does a great job of responding to the very sensational report. In light of the discussion on the listserv, I thought you all might enjoy reading it.

Being stupid in South Carolina
By Terry Plumb The Herald
Who's stupider?

South Carolina school children? Or their governor, who appears with his wife and kids as a poster family on a nationally televised TV program trashing public education?

Two weeks ago, Gov. Mark Sanford was interviewed by John Stossel on "20/20" for a segment titled, "Stupid in America: How Lack of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education." The program was a one-sided diatribe against public education, using a mishmash of anecdotal tales and dissatisfied individuals to characterize teachers as boring, schools as drug-filled and administrators as handcuffed by teacher unions that keep them from firing bad apples.

Do such abuses of the public trust occur? Surely, they do. Are they typical? Hardly.

Palmetto State viewers must have been startled by the dissatisfied family that "20/20" chose to interview. From a transcript of the show: "When the Sanford family moved from Charleston to Columbia, S.C., the family had a big concern: Where would the kids go to school? In most places, you must attend the public school in the zone where you live, but the middle school near the Sanford's new home was rated below average."

This was not a problem for the family, viewers were told, because Mark Sanford is governor and they could afford to send their four boys to private school. In fact, it was only after the Sanfords were invited "to send their kids to schools in better districts," that "Sanford realized how unfair the system was.

"'If you can buy a $250,000 or $300,000 house, you're gonna get some great public education,' Gov. Sanford said."

That's unmitigated crap. The Sanfords never have sent their kids to public school, even before they moved into the Governor's Mansion. Sanford was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and knows little to nothing about what takes place in public schools.

Time magazine labeled Sanford one of the three worst governors in America. He has been widely criticized for failing to reverse one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Think about it: Quality of schools is one of the first things companies examine before deciding to invest. What business executive is going to invest in a state where the governor goes on national TV to talk down public schools?

I have a proposal for the producers of "20/20": The next time they want to interview a South Carolina family about public schools, they can talk to the Plumbs of Rock Hill. We'll tell them about two daughters, their scholarships to prestigious colleges, their master's degrees and how they were launched on learning careers by dedicated public school teachers. And if they don't want to interview us, we'll give 'em 150 names of other families with similar success stories about South Carolina schools.

What our libertarian chief executive would say, of course, is that "school choice," the current buzz word for enticing the citizenry to subsidize private schools and home-schoolers, is essential for children who want to flee "failing schools."

Proponents of plans such as Sanford's pet Put Parents In Charge bill, which deservedly died in the Legislature last year, or a bill introduced last week to create $4,500 scholarships for poor children and $1,000 tax credits for the better off, would say that "school choice" is needed by families that cannot afford private school. When you ask how all these families would be served by these wunderschools, they assure you that the free market would accommodate the demand. That's what "choice" is all about, right?

More crap. Most private schools haven't got the capacity -- or the intention -- to serve but a tiny fraction of children now at inferior schools. Even if they did, a $4,500 scholarship wouldn't pay the freight at most private schools.
In an ideal world, all children would be raised in nurturing families and be served by exemplary schools. In reality, we live in a state plagued by two centuries of poverty and indifference to education, and are governed by politicians who lack the backbone to do anything about it.

In the words of Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does."

Karen, SC

Friday, February 3, 2006 2:58 PM
Thanks for sharing the article, Karen. It made my Friday. Terry swung back hard--good for him! We all need to push back hard when such simple-minded generalizations and approaches to improving schools get press or air time. What movie was this quote from--"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!”?
Alec, MA

Friday, February 3, 2006 6:00 PM
That quote was from the movie "Network" (Jane Fonda and WIlliam Holden). It certainly fits here!
Alba, MA

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 11:11 AM
Just a question - Why is it that the proponents of "school choice" only focus on private schools? Why don't they suggest public school choice? Why not allow kids to cross districts and choose to attend the public schools of their choice?
Kelly, CA

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 11:20 AM
First sensible approach to the issue.
In Albuquerque, a young girl of 13 so bullied that her mother could not get her to face daily psychological assault let alone focus on her academics, asked for a transfer to another APS middle school. Refused! Several times. "No crime was committed." In desperation, mother has shipped her young daughter to live in Florida with her father.

Is there not something (much) wrong with this picture?
Sandra, NM

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 12:48 PM
Public school choice is what we have in Vermont. It's problematic because most of our schools are rural, so transportation is a challenge/expense, but it does serve some people who need it (and others who want it because of better sports teams, etc.).
Edorah, VT