The following is the most comprehensive investigation and reporting that I have read so far about Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a group disguising themselves as a Democratic political group. DFER is a group working for business interests that pushes all things corporate education reform including charter schools, the dismantling of the teachers union, and support for Teach for America along with the Common Core Standards, among a myriad of other actions that are not in the best interest of students in public schools.
To follow is the white paper written by two teachers on Democrats for Education Reform also referred to as DFER:
The Intended Consequences of the DFER Education Agenda
By: Marla Kilfoyle and Melissa Tomlinson
Peer Reviewed by Dr. Deborah Cornavaca and Dr. Mitchell Robinson
The Democrats for Education Reform have initiated a shameless war on public education, even as they claim to support children, teachers, and schools.
DFER History and Background
The purpose of this report is to expose that the education platform of the Democrats for
Education is not one rooted in research or supportive of sound pedagogical practice. In
their mission statement the organization claims to be the champions of high-quality
public education for every child, but we will show that much of what they champion,
regarding policies and positions, are not rooted in best practices. We believe that
hedge fund managers, business executives, and privately-run corporations should not
be involved in creating or implementing education policy. Teachers, administrators,
parents, communities, and elected school boards should be the stakeholders
responsible for creating and implementing education policy in this country.
The Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) was founded in 2007 by hedge fund
managers, including Whitney Tilson, R. Boykin Curry IV, and John Petry.
Democrats for Education Reform is a political action committee that uses its immense wealth to lobby for specific policies in public education. In some states, DFER is called Education Reform NOW. Former T.V. reporter Joe Williams was the first executive director of Democrats for Education Reform (2007 to 2015). The organization is now led by Shavar Jeffries. The Board of Directors and Advisory Board of this hedge-fund-financed political action committee includes some of the top managers in the country. As Danielle Beurteaux noted, “Boykin Curry of Eagle Capital, Charles Ledley of Highfields Capital Man. Whitney Tilson of T2 Partners, David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital, Michael Novogratz of Fortress Investment Group, Greenblatt and Petry on its director and advisory boards” ( Beurteaux, 2011).
Whitney Tilson stated in the film, A Right Denied,
“The real problem, politically, was not the Republican Party, it was the Democratic Party. So it dawned on us, over the course of six months or a year, that it had to be an inside job. The biggest obstacle to education reform was moving the Democratic Party, and it had to be Democrats who did it, it had to be an inside job. So that was the thesis behind the organization. And the name – and the name was critical – we get a lot of flack for the name. You know, ‘Why are you Democrats for education reform? That’s very exclusionary. I mean, certainly, there are Republicans in favor of education reform.’ And we said, ‘We agree.’ In fact, our natural llies, in many cases, are Republicans on this crusade, but the problem is not Republicans. We don’t need to convert the Republican Party to our point of view…”
Lisa Graves, in her article for PR Watch, “How DFER Leaders Channel Out-of-State Dark Money”, wrote, “DFER co-founder…Whitney Tilson explained the hedge funders interest in education noting that “Hedge funds are always looking for ways to turn a small amount of capital into a large amount of capital” (Graves, 2016).
DFER defines their organization: “We are Democrats leading a political reform
organization that cultivates and supports leaders in our party who champion America’s
public schoolchildren.” Their vision as stated on their website is, “To make the
Democratic Party the champion of high-quality public education.” Their education vision
involves test-based accountability for students and teachers, school choice and
vouchers, support of Common Core, and private (charter) schools funded by public
money (Democrats for Education Reform, 2016). Democrats for Education Reform
currently has chapters in eleven states. Most of the state directors and staff are
business people or persons with ties to organizations whose understanding and
commitment to public education was difficult to identify beyond their profit motive.
DFER staff/board of advisors with business/corporate backgrounds (Democrats
for Education Reform, About Us, 2016 https://dfer.org/about-us/)
Victor Contreras (AZ), real estate
Marti Awad (CO), founding partner Cardan Capital Partners – securities, mergers,
acquisitions law firm
Patrick Byrne (CO), CEO of Overstock
Josh Hanfling (CO), co-founder of Sewald Hanfling – public affairs firm, former member
of Clinton Global Initiative
Hollie Velasquez Horvath (CO), manager of political engagement for Xcel Energy
Tom Kaesemeyer (CO), Executive Director, Fox Family Foundation
Jason Andrean (DC, assistant vice president and relationship manager at Capital One
Commercial Bank
Joy Arnold Russell (DC), founder of Jonathan Arnold Consulting
Victor Reinoso (DC), Senior Advisor to Bellwether Education Partners, an Entrepreneur
in Residence at the NewSchools Venture Fund, and the co-founder of Decision Science
Labs, a K-12 analytics and budgeting platform, investor and advisor to leading edtech
startups including TenMarks, LearnZillion and Ellevation Education
Liam Kerr, management consultancy The Parthenon Group and the national venture
philanthropy fund New Profit, Inc.
DFER staff/board of advisors with ties to corporate education reform:
Rhonda Cagle (AZ), Chief Communications & Development Officer, Imagine Schools
(charter management corporation)
Lindsay Neil (CO), Chief External Affairs Officer Strive Preparatory (Charter) Schools
Mary Seawell, (CO), Senior Vice President of Education, Gates Family Foundation
Amy Dowell (CT), prior director for StudentsFirst in NY
Catharine Bellinger, (DC Students for Education Reform, KIPP
Jason Andrean (DC), chairman of the proposed Legacy Collegiate Academy Public
Charter School
Mikaela Seligman (DC), The Broad Center for the Management of School Systems
Shawn Hardnett (DC), a founding teacher and administrator for KIPP Bayview Academy
in San Francisco, CA; later served as Founder and Head of School at the first single
gender academy within the KIPP Network, KIPP Polaris Academy for Boys in Houston
Texas; past Director of Charter Leadership Development; served as Chief of Schools for
both Friendship Public Charter Schools and Center City Public Charter Schools;
currently partnered with the DC Fund of New Schools Venture Fund
Maya Martin (DC), Chief of Staff at Achievement Prep (charter management
corporation)
Paula White (NJ), charter school founder, previous member of NJ Charter School Task
Force
Nicole Brisbane (NY), Teach for America (TFA)
Natasha Kamrani (TN), Teach For America (TFA)
Jennifer Kohn Koppel, (TX vice-president of Growth for IDEA Public Schools (charter
management corporation)
The list above represents more than 75% of the DFER staff and board of advisors. As
seen from the list above DFER is clearly not a group of individuals who should be
working on legislation to protect and provide for our public school system. For a
complete list of the candidates that DFER currently supports, visit their website
( https://dferlist.org/page/candidates ).
DFER Supports the Expansion of Private Schools Funded by Public Money (Charter Schools)
One of the main platforms of DFER is support of charter schools. In August of 2015,
the delegates for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) issued a statement recommending a moratorium on charters, demonstrating
critical and thoughtful leadership. (Heilig, 2016) DFER quickly refuted this resolution by
stating, “Across the country, particularly in our urban communities, public charter
schools are a beacon of hope that empower parents and families with greater control
over their child’s future.” (Jeffries, 2016) On October 15, 2016, the NAACP Board of
Directors issued a moratorium on charters schools nationwide (NAACP, 2016).
It has, however, been found that private schools funded by public money (charters) are
ripe with fraud and mismanagement. (Strauss, 2015) It has been noted that charters
sort and segregate students. In The Dirty Dozen: How Charter Schools Influence
Student Enrollment, Kevin Welner points out that, “the patterns are particularly stark
when we realize that such at-risk students are disproportionately enrolled in a small
subset of ‘mission-oriented’ charters – those dedicated to serving a particular type of
at-risk student” (Welner, 2013). Welner also shared that journalist Stephanie Simon
discovered how charters “cherry pick” the students they want. Simon noted that
“applications are made available just a few hours a year, there is a lengthy application
form that is often printed only in English.” Simon further revealed that charters require
“student and parent essays, report cards, test scores, disciplinary records, teacher
recommendations and medical records.” Charters also demand that “students present
Social Security cards and birth certificates for their applications to be considered, even
though such documents cannot be required under Federal law.” Even more egregious,
Simon points out that for students to get their spot in a charter school lottery they must
have “Mandatory family interviews, assessment exams, academic prerequisites, and
requirements that applicants document any disabilities or special needs.” (in Welner,
2013)
Frankenberg, Hawley, and Wang stated in Choice without Equity: Charter School
Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards, “as the country continues moving
steadily toward greater segregation and inequality of education for students of color in
schools with lower achievement and graduation rates, the rapid growth of charter
schools has been expanding a sector that is even more segregated than the public
schools. The Civil Rights Project has been issuing annual reports on the spread of
segregation in public schools and its impact on educational opportunity for 14 years.
The report states, “We know that choice programs can either offer quality educational
options with racially and economically diverse schooling to children who otherwise have
few opportunities or choice programs can increase stratification and inequality
depending on how they are designed. The charter effort, which has largely ignored the
segregation issue, has been justified by claims about superior educational performance,
which simply are not sustained by the research. Though there are some remarkable and
diverse charter schools, most are neither. The lessons of what is needed to make
choice work have usually been ignored in charter school policy. Magnet schools are the
striking example of and offer a great deal of experience in how to create educationally
successful and integrated choice options” (Frankenberg, 2012).
One has to wonder, given the preponderance of evidence, why DFER has not backed
away from their support of charter schools, like the NAACP, ACLU, and Black Lives
Matter who have all issued a moratorium on charters, and focus their resources toward
a rebuilding of community public schools designed for all children (Katayama, 2016).
Knowing the history and background of DFER’s board members, this is unlikely to
happen. Funneling money out of public education and into charter schools guides their
decision-making practices, not educational theories and pedagogy.
DFER Supports the Use of Standardized Tests for Accountability
DFER supposedly was founded based on the need to make schools more accountable
for meeting the needs of all students. DFER took a readily available tool, standardized
tests, and pushed them into the spotlight with the claim that they would be the panacea
to identifying schools with poor performance, thereby allowing them to be labeled as
“failing.” DFER’s continued emphasis on testing ignores sound educational practice and
learning theories, and denies the fact that basic human needs must be met for effective
learning to occur in the classroom. However, what they have failed to do is to effectively
put any legislation into action that provides necessary resources to school districts that
are in need of funding to provide pathways to provide the “wrap-around” services that
students need. In doing this, the organization can deny their culpability in the failure of
our government to create a system of supports and services that raise each generation
to become healthier and more self-sufficient, with the needs of the collective population
as the driving force of improvement.
In an attempt to give credit to standardized testing, DFER created an infographic to
show how parents feel about standardized tests (Democrats for Education Reform,
2015). Missing from this graphic is information that shows the effectiveness of
standardized tests in increasing a student’s educational performance. Also missing is
information about how using standardized tests has brought more resources to
classrooms or improved teaching methods. Of course, data and infographics showing
how these improvements were brought about by standardized tests are not being
promoted because no such data exists! DFER was only able to create this particular
infographic because parents have been fed the myth that the use of these tests for
accountability is the answer to what they perceive as an educational issue, distracting
them from the real issue of poverty and inequity in our nation. Instead, as stated in their
reaffirmation of belief in the PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for
College and Careers) exam, DFER wants us to believe that high expectations and rigor
are the keys to preparing students for the future, that some educators really don’t want
parents to know how their students are doing, and that a computer test is the true
measure of a student’s preparedness for life after high school (LeBuhn, Barone, 2014).
DFER Refuses to Acknowledge that Standardized Testing Does Not Close the
Achievement/Opportunity Gap
Instead of being the key to a better education, when analyzing the results of
standardized tests, several studies have shown that standardized testing does not close
the achievement gap. Nichols, Glass, and Berliner used an Accountability Pressure
Index to measure state-level policy pressure for performance on standardized testing,
and correlations between high-stakes testing accountability and student performance.
Their findings show that the achievement gap is not reduced by the use of standardized
tests. Specifically, African-American students had the lowest average NAEP scores in
both fourth and eighth-grade math.
Additionally, the authors noted that fourth and eighth-grade average math scores rose
more dramatically before NCLB than after. Also noted is the fact that pressure for high
performance from 2004 is associated with decreased performance in math for the years
2005-2009. The authors of this study state that it ‘s hard to form a definite conclusion
regarding the relationship of accountability pressure and student achievement. We
maintain that this finding alone is evidence that the overemphasis on standardized
testing needs to be decreased, especially in a time where budgetary decision-making
results in the allocation of more funds towards testing, and fewer funds toward
programs and services that directly help students and their families (Nichols, Glass, and
Berliner, 2012).
Furthermore, in Closing the Achievement Gap: A Metaphor for Children Left Behind,
Giroux and Schmidt found that, “when state tests are viewed as the sole indicator of
student learning, especially when attached to academic promotion and high school exit
criteria, less than positive effects on students’ opportunities for learning have been
reported.” The authors further contend that “The most fundamental element of school
reform is improving educational opportunities for all children who attend public schools,
but this would demand more than simply tougher accountability schemes, expanded
choice programs and more testing.” Giroux and Schmidt reference Gutman (2000)
when calling for powerful systemic education reforms for all children, specifically
underserved children that DFER members continue to ignore. Gutman makes the
following recommendations: ‘‘decreasing class size, expanding preschool programs,
setting high standards for all students, engaging students in cooperative learning
exercises, empowering principals and teachers to innovate, increasing social services
offered to students and their families, and providing incentives to the ablest college
students to enter the teaching profession and, in particular, to teach in inner city
schools” (Giroux & Schmidt, 2004).
DFER also promotes the use of standardized testing to evaluate teacher quality, while ignoring the trauma that underserved children come to school with on a daily basis, trauma that adversely impacts test scores.
Recent research has shown that trauma experienced during childhood can impact concentration, memory and language development that children need to be successful in school. The foundation that a child needs for learning, the ability to form relationships, trust, and communication skills can be affected, resulting in lower assessment results. To rate teachers based upon a test that does not account for these facts is not a valid measurement of a teacher’s ability to teach.(“Traumatic experiences can impact learning,” 2016) The American Statistical
Association noted in 2014 that, “most VAM studies find that teachers account for about
1% to 14% of the variability in test scores and that the majority of opportunities for
quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions. Ranking teachers by their
VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality” (American
Statistical Association, 2014). Children who are poor come to school with the trauma of
food insecurity, shelter insecurity, and family disruption. For teachers who teach in
high-needs districts with high populations of underserved children, this is a recipe for
disaster for the child, the teacher, and the district.
The Economic Policy Institute’s Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to
Evaluate Teachers found that “there is not strong evidence to indicate either that the
departing teachers would be the weakest teachers, or that the departing teachers would
be replaced by more effective ones. There is also little or no evidence for the claim that
teachers will be more motivated to improve student learning if teachers are evaluated or
monetarily rewarded for student test score gains.” On evaluating teachers using test
scores, the report also contends that,
“VAM (Value Added Measure) estimates have proven to be unstable across statistical
models, years, and classes that teachers teach. One study found that across five large
urban districts, among teachers who were ranked in the top 20% of effectiveness in the
first year, fewer than a third were in that top group the next year, and another third
moved all the way down to the bottom 40%. Another found that teachers’ effectiveness
ratings in one year could only predict from 4% to 16% of the variation in such ratings in
the following year. Thus, a teacher who appears to be very ineffective in one year might
have a dramatically different result the following year. The same dramatic fluctuations
were found for teachers ranked at the bottom in the first year of analysis. This runs
counter to most people’s notions that the true quality of a teacher is likely to change
very little over time and raises questions about whether what is measured is largely a
‘teacher effect’ or the effect of a wide variety of other factors.”
On student achievement, the authors state that “ these factors also include school
conditions—such as the quality of curriculum materials, specialist or tutoring supports,
class size, and other factors that affect learning. Schools that have adopted pull-out,
team teaching, or block scheduling practices will only inaccurately be able to isolate
individual teacher ‘effects’ for evaluation, pay, or disciplinary purposes. Student test
score gains are also strongly influenced by school attendance and a variety of
out-of-school learning experiences at home, with peers, at museums and libraries, in
summer programs, online, and in the community. Well educated and supportive parents
can help their children with homework and secure a wide variety of other advantages for
them. Other children have parents who, for a variety of reasons, are unable to support
their learning academically. Student test score gains are also influenced by family
resources, student health, family mobility, and the influence of neighborhood peers and
of classmates who may be relatively more advantaged or disadvantaged” (Baker et al.,
2010).
Linda Darling-Hammond noted in Can Value Added Add Value to Teacher Evaluation?
that “the most tragic outcome will be if VAM measures are used to ensure a spread in
the ratings of teachers so as to facilitate dismissals, but the teachers who are fired are
not the ‘incompetent deadwood’ imagined by advocates. Instead, they are the teachers
working with the most challenging students in the most challenging contexts and those
whose students are so far ahead of the curve the tests have no items to measure their
gains, and perhaps those who eschew test prep in favor of more exciting, but less
testable, learning experiences. If value-added measures continue to prove
untrustworthy, the likelihood that they can be used to improve the quality of teaching, or
of the teaching force, will be remote” (Darling-Hammond, 2015).
One need only to reference the case of New York teacher Sheri Lederman to note the
ineffective nature of VAM and its ability to distinguish teacher quality. Dr. Lederman, an
award-winning teacher, sued the New York State Department of Education over her
evaluation score. Valerie Strauss highlighted the case on her blog, “The Answer
Sheet”, for The Washington Post. Strauss noted the history of the suit: “In 2012-13,
68.75 percent of her New York students met or exceeded state standards in both
English and math. She was labeled ‘effective’ that year. In 2013-2014, her students’ test
results were very similar, but she was rated ‘ineffective.’ Meanwhile, her district
superintendent, Thomas Dolan, declared that Lederman — whose students received
standardized math and English Language Arts test scores consistently higher than the
state average — has a ‘flawless record.’” Strauss further noted that “Lederman’s suit
against state education officials — including King — challenges the rationality of the
VAM model, and it alleges that the New York State Growth Measures actually punishes
excellence in education through a statistical black box which no rational educator or fact
finder could see as fair, accurate or reliable.” In May 2015, New York Supreme Court
Judge Roger McDonough ruled that Lederman’s evaluation was “arbitrary” and
“capricious” (Strauss, 2015).
In the larger context, the DFER support of test-based evaluations for teachers is not
only flawed but dangerous to children and public education. Promotion of such policies
that educational experts repeatedly demonstrate as flawed can arguably be considered
educational malpractice. Since most of DFER members are hedge funders, this
approach to teacher evaluation would be like firing a trader based on one day of
performance on Wall Street.
DFER Supports Common Core
Part of the myth that DFER tries to sell is that there is a “magic bullet” answer for what
they feel is wrong with our schools. DFER tries to tell the public that if our schools have
more “rigorous” standards that are composed of more “grit”, our students will be better
prepared to compete in the future workforce. They tout these reforms as “necessary
recalibration”. (Johnson, 2013)
Hiebert and Mesmer noted in Upping the Ante of Text Complexity in the Common Core
State Standards: Examining Its Potential Impact on Young Readers that the drive to set
the bar so high in the younger grades, as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
does, will have more negative consequences than positive results. Hebert and Mesmer
state strongly that, “we believe that the evidence cited by CCSS writers to verify
declining levels of text complexity pertains to middle and high schools, not the primary
grades. Some overgeneralizations of the textbook simplification research have resulted
in large changes in the primary grades. The early acceleration of text complexity takes
the focus off of secondary level where the patterns of declining challenges in texts have
been clear and consistent for a 40-year period” (Hiebert & Mesmer, 2013).
Hiebert and Mesmer found “text that the CCSS offers as an exemplar for the Grades
2–3 band—Bats: Creatures of the Night (Milton, 1993)—has the same mean log word
frequency as an exemplar for the Grades 11–12 CCR band—Common Sense (Paine,
1776/2005).” In regard to making young children deal with such high level text
complexity, they further stated, “at present, there is research indicating that motivation
decreases when tasks become too challenging and none that indicates that increasing
challenge (and potential levels of failure) earlier in students’ careers will change this
dismal national pattern of disengagement with literacy.” (Guthrie, Wigfield, & You, 2012)
In The Common Core State Standards’ Quantitative Text Complexity Trajectory :
Figuring Out How Much Complexity Is Enough, Williamson, Fitzgerald and Stenner
point out:
“The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) set a controversial aspirational, quantitative trajectory for text complexity exposure for readers throughout the grades, aiming for all high school graduates to be able to independently read complex college and workplace texts. However, the trajectory standard is presented without reference to how the grade-by-grade complexity ranges were determined or rationalized, and little guidance is provided for educators to know how to apply the flexible quantitative text exposure standard in their local contexts. We extend and elaborate the CCSS presentation and discussion, proposing that decisions about shifting quantitative text complexity levels in schools requires more than implementation of a single, static standard” (2013).
Finally, with the emphasis on reading and math, and increased “test prep” for standardized testing, the fine arts have been pushed out of schools across America. Alice Wexler states in Reaching Higher? The Impact of the Common Core State Standards on the Visual Arts, Poverty, and Disabilities: “While the numbing conformism of the Common Core State Standards that has transformed education into test preparation puts all children at risk, the poor and the disabled are inevitably its target. While all children need the arts, these populations are socially and psychically equalized and empowered by them. Children who flourish when engaged in autonomous acts of discovery, experimentation, and hypothetical thinking rather than passive submission to expository teaching, might not necessarily succeed in academics, let alone meet the unreasonable demands of the new tests. Educators need to believe in the educational merits of unpredictability, uncertainty, and risk-taking, all of which good art teachers embrace” (Wexler, 2014).
DFER’s continued support of the CCSS, which has not been adequately researched or
vetted, speaks to the organization’s lack of knowledge about the complexity of
educating children. The continued push by DFER members, and groups that they
finance, for the untested CCSS has had a detrimental impact on teaching and learning
in the United States. If the CCSS are so amazing, one has to ask why private schools
that do not have to adhere to CCSS are not suffering the challenges of achievement
gap. CCSS is not a solution, rather a symptom of a misdiagnosis of the real issue.
DFER Perpetuates a “Failing Schools” Narrative
One of DFER’s most significant accomplishments to date was the feat of pulling the
wool over everyone’s eyes, shifting the blame from where it should be (i.e., the failure of
the government to fully fund schools, provide necessary resources, and address
structural poverty), and placing it in the schools themselves. DFER blog posts and
position statements are full of language that perpetuates the failing schools rhetoric.
After two years of failing to meet annual yearly progress, a school is identified as a
“school in need of improvement”. Lists of these schools are published and plans made
to overhaul the current systems in place, with sometimes drastic changes, that
potentially destroy recent progress. When responding to the recent passage of the
ESSA legislation, DFER praised the legislation for the maintaining of annual statewide
testing and funding to new differential pay and human capital management systems for
teachers and principals (Barone, 2015) despite the fact that there is no evidence to
support annual testing as improving educational outcomes.
What has been created in our nation is a constant market of supply and demand for our
corporate education suppliers that sell products offering the magic-bullet solution for
remediation to learners that perform poorly on standardized assessments. Schools are
encouraged to purchase new curriculums, supplemental materials, technology hardware
or software, classroom management systems, or hire consultants; all of which can be
done, for a price. When that is not enough, new benchmarks are created, proficiency
score levels are changed, and revised standardized tests are created, giving birth to a
resurgence of the education product market.
Monetary resources for education should be spent in ways that will truly benefit
students. Published by the Albert Shanker Institute, a report by Bruce D. Baker explores
the question, “Does money matter in education?” One of his conclusions states that:
“Schooling resources that cost money, including smaller class sizes, additional
supports, early childhood programs and more competitive teacher compensation
(permitting schools and districts to recruit and retain a higher-quality teacher workforce),
are positively associated with student outcomes. Again, in some cases, those effects
are larger than in others, and there is also variation in student population and other
contextual variables. On the whole, however, the things that cost money benefit
students, and there is scarce evidence that there are more cost-effective alternatives”
(Baker, 2016).
Card and Payne further contend in School Finance Reform, the Distribution of School
Spending, and the Distribution of SAT Scores that spending equalizations that occurred
in 12 states in the 1980s after unconstitutional court rulings resulted in children from
highly-educated and low-educated parents closing the gap in SAT average by 5% (or 8
points) (Card & Payne, 1998). Downes and Figlio further support this finding by showing
that the test scores of high school seniors in low spending districts rose after a
court-mandated and legislatively induced finance reform (Downes & Figlio, 1997).
Glaringly absent from the DFER “What We Stand For” statement is any mention of the
following items, as recommended by the National Education Policy Center in 2014:
➤Class size is an important determinant of student outcomes and one that can be
directly determined by policy. All else being equal, increasing class sizes will harm
student outcomes.
➤The evidence suggests that increasing class size will harm not only children’s test
scores in the short run, but also their long-run human capital formation. Money saved
today by increasing class sizes will result in more substantial social and educational
costs in the future.
➤The payoff from class-size reduction is greater for low-income and minority children,
while any increases in class size will likely be most harmful to these populations.
➤Policymakers should weigh the efficacy of class-size policy against other potential
uses of funds carefully. While lower class size has a demonstrable cost, it may prove
the more cost-effective policy overall. (Schanzenbach, 2014)
When discussing education policy-making and how it is conducted, another glaring void
is apparent within DFER. Missing from their conversations are a call for the most
important stakeholders of education to have a prominent voice in policy writing and
decision making: teachers, parents, and students. Their focus on testing without equal
attention towards creating spaces for stakeholder input and collaboration on solutions
allows them to perpetuate the narrative of failing schools.
DFER Believes our Public School Systems are in Decline
Another part of the DFER narrative is that our school system is in decline. The
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a test that was designed by
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to test the skills and
knowledge of 15-year old students. Prominent education historian, Dr. Diane Ravitch,
notes, “Never do they explain how it was possible for the U.S. to score so poorly on
international tests again and again over the past half century and yet still emerge as the
world’s leading economy, with the world’s most vibrant culture, and a highly productive
workforce. From my vantage point as a historian, here is my takeaway from the PISA
scores: Lesson 1: If they mean anything at all, the PISA scores show the failure of the
past dozen years of public policy in the United States. The billions invested in testing,
test prep, and accountability have not raised test scores or our nation’s relative standing
on the league tables. No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top are manifest failures at
accomplishing their singular goal of higher test scores” (Ravitch, 2013).
Furthermore, Des Griffin points out in What’s wrong with PISA: Why condemning
international tests is a distraction, and what we really should be worried about that
“there are other lessons aimed at the US coming from PISA rankings that perhaps the
US, and other countries such as Australia, should be paying attention to. How many
times does it have to be pointed out that ‘socio-economic disadvantage has a notable
impact on student performance’”? Also, PISA 2009 asserted local funding of education
exacerbates inequality and ‘may be the single most important factor for the US.’ But it
seems impossible for Americans to come to grips with these findings” (Griffin, 2015).
Democrats for Education Reform continues to ignore researchers, who repeatedly point
out that the U.S. system of education must address inequality, and that inequity has
been detrimental to education policy and public education.
DFER billions fund local, state, and federal political races and use “the sky is falling” rhetoric to fuel their continued efforts to control public education. As a result, we have seen elected lawmakers, funded by DFER money, work to slash school aid budgets. DFER continues to ignore that equity funding is essential to help our most struggling students and schools. They continue to influence these lawmakers to slash public education budgets in their states, starving the schools of the resources they need to operate.
Decreased class sizes and more certified teachers per pupil are resources that increase
the value of school for all children, especially for our most needy children.
In Evaluating the Recession’s Impact on School Finance Systems, Bruce Baker notes,
“the recent recession yielded an unprecedented decline in public school funding
fairness. Thirty-six states had a three-year average reduction in current spending
fairness between 2008-09 and 2010-11 and 32 states had a three-year average
reduction in state and local revenue fairness over that same period. Over the entire
19-year period, only 15 states saw an overall decline in spending fairness. In years
before 2008 (starting in 1993), only 11 states saw an overall decline in spending
fairness.” Baker further contends that “while equity overall took a hit between 1997 and
2011, the initial state of funding equity varied widely at the outset of the period, with
Massachusetts and New Jersey being among the most progressively funded states in
- Thus, they arguably had further to fall. Funding equity for many states has barely
budged over time, and remained persistently regressive, for example in Illinois, New
York, and Pennsylvania” (Baker, 2014).
Baker, Farrie, and Sciara contend in The Changing Distribution of Educational
Opportunities: 1993–2012 that, “over the past ten years, state average staffing
increases have been much more modest, and over the past five years, nonexistent.”
They further point out that, “equity and adequacy of financial inputs to schooling across
states are required if we ever expect to achieve more equitable access to a highly
qualified teacher workforce (as dictated in part by the competitiveness of their
compensation) and reasonable class sizes” (Baker, Farrie, and Sciarra, 2016).
As we have seen over the last decade, corporate education reform proponents such as DFER members continue to ignore the importance of equal and equitable funding.
Research has shown that when children are provided with schools that are funded
equally and equitably, they do well. Research has also shown that when class sizes are
small, and children are taught by qualified teachers, they will thrive educationally,
resulting in improved test scores and future success. DFER continues to ignore this
research. They continue to ignore that you cannot test your way out of poverty, that
CCSS will not cure poverty, and that school choice will not cure poverty. The result of
this ignorance will have a lasting impact on our children, and specifically our children
who live in poverty.
DFER Believes in School Choice
To give parents the illusion that they have a voice in the educational decision making for
their children, DFER relies heavily on the narrative of school choice.
Different states have different programs or a combination of different programs in place that all fall
under the category of school choice. The proliferation of these different programs is due
to the “word manipulation” that DFER members use to pass legislation that allows their
agenda to flourish. School choice can be identified as vouchers, education savings
accounts, tax-credit scholarships, or even as individual tax credits or deductions. The
offering of school choice paves the way for families to enroll students in charter schools.
But, the name chosen for the particular program does not matter; the end goal is all the
same. Financially, this is another way that our public school system is being starved.
Educational dollars remain with each student, so where the student attends school is
where the money goes as well.
Stemming from the narrative that public schools are failing, school choice has become a
way to sell a quick solution to parents and communities. Charter schools, with the
original intent, to allow for educational innovation to occur under a less restrictive
environment, freed from regulations and oversight, have been compromised into an
alternative education system that funnels public funds to private interests. With the
recent induction of Shavar Jeffries into the ranks of DFER, the push for the charter
school agenda has been renewed. Jeffries has argued that increasing school choice is
necessary for closing the income gap (David, 2016).
With the backing of corporate money, the marketing plan for school choice and charter
schools rivals those of large corporations, with DFER doing their share of promotion
(Doctrow, 2014). But parents and communities should take a close look at the results of
school choice in different locations. In 2009, researchers reported that voucher
programs have led to “increased stratification across public and private schools.”
In The impact of school choice and public policy on segregation: Evidence from Chile, Gregory
Elacqua found “that Chile’s unrestricted flat per-pupil voucher program has led to
increased stratification across public and private schools. What has been overlooked,
however, is segregation between schools within a sector and variation within private
voucher for-profit and non-profit (religious and secular) school sectors.” Elacqua further
noted “that public schools are more likely to serve disadvantaged – low-income and
indigenous – students than private voucher schools. I also find that the typical public
school is more internally diverse with regard to ethnicity and socioeconomic status than
the typical private voucher school.” Finally, Elacqua notes, “despite having a mission to
serve the needy, Catholic voucher schools enroll, on average, fewer disadvantaged
students (vulnerable and indigenous) than public and other private voucher school
types” (Elacqua, 2009).
As we have seen in the United States, school choice is not a choice when parents have
to make decisions to send their child out of their neighborhood to a school far from their
home. An example of the impact of “choice” on children is the story of one child in New
Orleans. A student who attended the all-charter district in New Orleans shared his story
at a conference held at Texas Christian University. He spoke of rarely seeing his
mother when he was growing up because he had to catch a city bus at 6 a.m. to get to
school, which was over 20 miles from his home. He played sports after school so did
not arrive home until 8 p.m. He saw his mother for 30 minutes a day, as she went to
bed at 8:30 to get up for her job early in the morning. In the end, this young man said
that school choice was not a choice for him as he was not accepted at the school that
was just 2 miles from his home. Public schools take in, and keep, all children, unlike
charter schools. In a debate with Dan Senor on the Bill Maher Show, D.L. Hughley said
of school choice: “Why do I have to leave my neighborhood to go to school? What is it
about my neighborhood that is so bad that I have to leave it to attend school?”
A study on school choice in New Zealand shows that “choice” is not the route to travel if
we want to make equitable decisions about education. Helen Ladd and Edward Fiske
highlighted in Does Competition Improve Teaching and Learning? Evidence from New
Zealand “that New Zealand’s introduction of full parental choice in 1992 increased
competitive pressures more for some schools than for others. With careful attention to
various potential threats to validity, we conclude that competition—as perceived by
teachers—generated negative effects on the quality of student learning and other
aspects of schooling in New Zealand’s elementary schools” (Ladd & Fiske, 2003).
Hansen and Gustafsson also found in Sweden that school choice leads to segregation.
Hansen and Gustafsson concluded “that school segregation with respect to migration
background and educational achievement had increased over time, while social
segregation remained rather constant. The degree of school segregation varied largely
across different municipality types, and it was concluded that school choice was a
determinant of school segregation” (Hansen & Gustafsson, 2015). Finally, Dennis
Epple and Richard E. Romano found in Competition between Private and Public
Schools, Vouchers, and Peer-Group Effects “that tuition vouchers increase the relative
size of the private sector and the extent of student sorting, and benefit high-ability
students relative to low-ability students” (Epple & Romano, 1998).
DFER’s education policies would have us believe that the voucher system gives all
children choice, when in fact, it provides choice to a few children. Like their Republican
counterparts, DFER continues to support a system that hyper-segregates the school
population, rolls back advances made possible by Brown V. Board of Education, and
destabilizes households when children must leave their neighborhood to attend schools
in areas they are not familiar with. Also, the voucher system in most states depletes
money from traditional public schools that serve, and keep, all children.
DFER Education Policy Fosters an Anti-Union Platform
Democrats for Education Reform has not come out and directly stated that they would
like to see a reduction in the effectiveness of teachers unions to advocate for what they
feel is in the best interest of the students. All of the above agenda items on the DFER
platform are known to lead towards a reduction in the strength of teacher unions. Their
push for school choice leads families to schools that are not unionized, support merit
pay, and ignore the benefits that experienced teachers bring to the classroom by
denying seniority rights.
As advocates for students, and the last line of defense for children, teachers unions
have developed platforms or position statements against DFER’s policies.
In Do Teacher Unions Hinder Educational Performance? Lessons Learned from State
SAT and ACT Scores it was found that “states with greater percentages of teachers in
unions reported higher test performance” on the SAT and ACT (Steelman, Powell, and
Carinin, 2000). Burroughs noted in Arguments and Evidence: The Debate over
Collective Bargaining’s Role in Public Education that Grimes and Register (1981) found
SAT scores for African-Americans were higher in union schools. In 1990, Grimes and
Register also found that students in unionized schools scored higher on measures of
economic literacy (Burroughs, 2008).
Outside of school walls, unions have been good for American society. Noted for
building and sustaining the middle class, of which teachers are often members, unions
not only sustain a living wage for workers but also have leveled, somewhat, the playing
field for minorities and women. Mishel summarized in The State of Working America,
12th Edition that “unionized workers have a higher wage premium, are more likely to be
covered for health insurance, and have a pension to sustain them in their later years.
With the decline of unions (from 1973-2011 it declined 13.6 percent) we have seen
wage inequality has continued to grow between those at the top and those in the
middle.” Mishel further warns, “together with other laissez-faire policies such as
globalization, deregulation, and lower labor standards such as a weaker minimum
wage; deunionization has strengthened the hands of employers and undercut the ability
of low- and middle-wage workers to have good jobs and economic security. If we want
the fruits of economic growth to benefit the vast majority, we will have to adopt a
different set of guideposts for setting economic policy, as the ones in place over the last
several decades have served those with the most income, wealth, and political power.
Given unions’ important role in setting standards for both union and nonunion workers,
we must ensure that every worker has access to collective bargaining” (Mishel, 2012).
Conclusion
The Democrats for Education Reform have initiated a shameless war on public education, even as they claim to support children, teachers, and schools.
Essentially, the basic reason DFER was formed was to undermine the strengths of the public school
system and the strength of unions in public education. As Tilson noted, the mission of
DFER was, “to break the teacher unions’ stranglehold over the Democratic Party, NOT
to create equitable schools for our children” (Miller, 2016). Public education is the
bedrock of democracy. It is the one public sector institution that can level the playing
field for black and brown children in America. It is the one institution that can be the
center of communities, both in service of education and a wide range of other societal
needs. What DFER has adopted, as seen in this meta-analysis, is a course of
destruction for public education. The policies DFER lays out for education (i.e., school
choice, support for the Common Core, a “failing schools” narrative, and the overall
decline of public education) are all smoke and mirrors for an agenda that seeks to
privatize public education in order to generate massive amounts of profit for their
wealthy founders and investors. This deceptive campaign has most Americans duped
into believing their disingenuous rhetoric about public education. We believe that this
analysis of the research around DFER’s agenda debunks much of what the organization
supports, and will begin a real conversation about the strengthening of public education
for all of America’s children.
References
American Statistical Association. (2014). ASA Statement on Using Value Added Models for
Educational Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/asa_vam_statement.pdf
Baker, B.D. (2016). Does Money Matter in Education?(Second Edition). Retrieved from Albert
Shanker Institute website
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/does-money-matter-second-edition
Baker, B. D. (2014). Evaluating the recession’s impact on state school finance systems.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(91). Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n91.2014
Baker, B. Farrie, D. & Sciarra, D (2016). The Changing Distribution of Educational Opportunities:
1993–2012 in Erwin Kirsch & Henry Braun (Eds.), The Dynamics of Opportunity in America (pp.
97-136). Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-25991-8_4/fulltext.html
Baker, E., Barton, P., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H., Linn, R., Ravitch, D., . . .
Shepard, L. (2010, August). Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers
(Briefing paper #278). Retrieved from Economic Policy Institute Website
http://www.epi.org/publication/bp278/
Barone, Charles. (2015, July 6). Senate ESEA Bill Walks Away From Students in Failing Schools
[Web Log Post]. Retrieved from
http://dfer.org/release-senate-esea-bill-walks-away-from-students-in-failing-schools
Beurteaux, Danielle. (2011, June). Joining the Schoolyard Battle: Dozens of Hedge fund
managers have funded the charter school movement & stepped into one of the most
contentious public debates in America. Retrieved from http://daniellebeurteaux.com/wp-content/uploads/daniellebeurteaux.com/2011/10/Joining-the-schoolyard-battle.pdf
Burroughs, N. (2008). Arguments and Evidence: The Debate over Collective Bargaining’s Role in
Public Education. Education Policy Brief. Volume 6, Number 8, Fall 2008. Center for Evaluation
and Education Policy, Indiana University. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503855.pdf
Card, D and Payne, A.A. (2002) “School Finance Reform, The Distribution Of School Spending,
And The Distribution Of Student Test Scores,” Journal of Public Economics, 83, 49-82. doi:
10.3386/w6766
Carini, R., Powell, B., & Steelman, L. C. (2000). Do Teacher Unions Hinder Educational
Performance?: Lessons Learned from State SAT and ACT Scores. Harvard Educational Review,
70(4), 437-467. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ617440
Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Can Value Added Add Value to Teacher Evaluation? Educational
Researcher, 44(2), 132–137. doi:10.3102/0013189X15575346
David, J. (2016, April 30). CNBC: Education reform ‘good politics, good policy,’ School choice
advocate says. Retrieved from
http://dfer.org/cnbc-education-reform-good-politics-good-policy-school-choice-advocate-says/
Democrats for Education Reform. (n.d.). What we Stand For. Retreived from
http://dfer.org/about-us/what-we-stand-for/
Democrats for Education Reform. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from http://dfer.org/about-us/
Democrats for Education Reform. (2015, March 19). ESEA Infographic Brief #5 – Public Opinion
on Student Testing [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://dfer.org/esea-infographic-brief-5-public-opinion-on-student-testing/
Doctrow, S. (2014). A look back at National School Choice Week [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://dfer.org/a-look-back-at-national-school-choice-week/
Downes, T.A., and Figlio, D.N. (1997). School Finance Reforms, Tax Limits, and Student
Performance: Do Reforms Level Up or Dumb Down? Retrieved from Institute for Research on
Poverty website: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp114297.pdf
Elacqua, G. (2012). The impact of school choice and public policy on segregation: Evidence from
Chile. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(3), 444-453.
http://www.educacion2020.cl/sites/default/files/dtcpce10_upd.pdf
Epple, D., & Romano, R. E. (1998). Competition between private and public schools, vouchers,
and peer-group effects. American Economic Review, 33-62.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/116817?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Frankenberg, Erica; Siegel-Hawley, Genevieve; Wang, Jia; & Orfield, Gary. (2012). Choice
Without Equity: Charter School Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards. UCLA: The
Civil Rights Project / Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4r07q8kg
Giroux, H., & Schmidt, M. (2004). Closing the Achievement Gap: A Metaphor for Children Left
Behind. Journal of Educational Change, 5, 213-228. doi:10.1023/B:JEDU.0000041041.71525.67
Graves, Lisa. (2016, March 31). How DFER Leaders Channel Out-of-State Dark Money. [Web log
post]. Retrieved from http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/03/13065/how-dfer-leaders-channel-out-state-dark-money-colorado-and-beyond
Griffin, D. what’s wrong with PISA: Why condemning international tests is a distraction and
what we really should be worried about {Web log post]. Retrieved from:
http://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?tag=whats-wrong-with-pisa
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and
achievement in reading. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601-634).
Springer US
Haimson, Leonie. (2011, August 11). An Open Letter to NPR about their Coverage of the SOS
March. [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://parentsacrossamerica.org/an-open-letter-to-npr-about-their-coverage-of-the-sos-march/
Hiebert, E. H., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the Common
Core State Standards examining its potential impact on young readers. Educational Researcher,
42(1), 44-51.
Jeffries, Shavar. (2016, August 3). Shavar Jeffries on the NAACP Calling for a Moratorium on
Charter Schools. Retrieved from http://dfer.org/statement-from-dfer-president-shavar-jeffries-on-the-naacps-resolution-callingfor-a-moratorium-on-charter-schools/
Johnson, C. (2013, November). The Common Core will help our children compete. [Web log
post]. Retrieved from http://dfer.org/the-common-core-will-help-our-children-compete/
Katayama, Devin (2016, August 11). Civil Rights Groups Call for Moratorium on New Charter
Schools. KQED News. Retrieved from https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/08/11/civil-rights-groups-call-for-moratorium-on-charter-schools/
Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (2003). Does competition improve teaching and learning? Evidence
from New Zealand. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 97-112.
http://epa.sagepub.com/content/25/1/97.short
LeBuhn, Mac. (2013). One Hundred Thousand Students. [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://dfer.org/one-hundred-thousand-students/
LeBuhn, M & Barone, C. (2014, March). Stand with Us for Common Core Assessments. [Web
log post]. Retrieved from http://dfer.org/stand-with-us-for-common-core-assessments/
Miller, Justin (2016). Hedging Education: How Hedge Funders Spurred the Pro-Charter Political
Network; The American Prospect. http://prospect.org/article/hedging-education
Mishel, L. (2012). Unions, inequality, and faltering middle-class wages. Issue Brief, 342.
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib342-unions-inequality-faltering-middle-class/
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (2016). Statement Regarding the
NAACP’s Resolution on a Moratorium on Charter Schools. retrieved from http://www.naacp.org/latest/statement-regarding-naacps-resolution-moratorium-charter-schools/
Nichols, S., Glass, G., & Berliner, D. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement:
Updated analyses with NAEP data. education policy analysis archives, 20, 20.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v20n20.2012
Ravitch, D. (2013, December 3). My View of the PISA Scores. [Web log post]. Retrieved from
https://dianeravitch.net/2013/12/03/my-view-of-the-pisa-scores/
Schanzenbach, D.W. (2014). Does Class Size Matter? Boulder, CO: National Education Policy
Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/does-class-size-matter
Strauss, V. (2016, May 10). Judge calls evaluation of N.Y. teacher “arbitrary” and “capricious” in
case against new U.S. secretary of education. Washington Post. Retrieved from
Strauss, V. (2015, April 28). Report: Millions of dollars in fraud, waste found in charter school
sector. Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/04/28/report-millions-of-doll
ars-in-fraud-waste-found-in-charter-school-sector/
Torres, Justin. (2007, June). Democrats for Education Reform: A new grassroots lobbying group
plans to shake up its party’s positions on education. Retrieved from
Traumatic experiences can impact learning, behavior and relationships at school. (2016).
Retrieved https://traumasensitiveschools.org/trauma-and-learning/the-problem-impact/
Vasquez Heilig, Julian. (2016, July 29). Breaking News: @NAACP Calls for a National Moratorium
on Charters. [Web log post]. Retrieved from
Welner, K. G. (April 2013). The Dirty Dozen: How Charter Schools Influence Student Enrollment.
Teachers College Record. [online], http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 17104
Wexler, A. (2014). Reaching higher? The impact of the Common Core State Standards on the
visual arts, poverty, and disabilities. Arts Education Policy Review, 115(2), 52-61.
Williamson, G. L., Fitzgerald, J., & Stenner, A. J. (2013). The Common Core State Standards’
Quantitative Text Complexity Trajectory Figuring Out How Much Complexity Is Enough.
Educational Researcher, 42(2), 59-69.
Yang Hansen, K., & Gustafsson, J. E. (2016). Causes of educational segregation in
sweden–school choice or residential segregation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1-22.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/figure/10.1080/13803611.2016.1178589
Seattle Education 
Thank you for helping to identify the “Defers” as closet conservatives. With the public dividing so clearly on issues nowadays, surely the DFER group can be exposed as being no where near the goals of left-leaning Democrats.
THANK YOU for helping to expose the “Defers” as closet conservatives. The public is dividing clearly on issues, and with exposure the Defers will not be able to keep up the pretense that they are actually on the Democratic side.
Thank you for this splendid investigative summary. I especially appreciated the direct quote on the strategy in naming this anti-democratic group, Democrats for Education Reform