What do you think?
Rate this book
50 Myths and Lies That Threaten America’s Public Schools: The Real Crisis in Education
Two of the most respected voices in education and a team of young education scholars identify 50 myths and lies that threaten America's public schools. With hard-hitting information and a touch of comic relief, Berliner, Glass, and their Associates separate fact from fiction in this comprehensive look at modern education reform. They explain how the mythical failure of public education has been created and perpetuated in large part by political and economic interests that stand to gain from its destruction. They also expose a rapidly expanding variety of organizations and media that intentionally misrepresent facts. Many of these organizations suggest that their goal is unbiased service in the public interest when, in fact, they represent narrow political and financial interests. Where appropriate, the authors name the promoters of these deceptions and point out how they are served by encouraging false beliefs. This provocative book features short essays on important topics to provide every elected representative, school administrator, school board member, teacher, parent, and concerned citizen with much food for thought, as well as reliable knowledge from authoritative sources.
272 pages, Paperback
First published March 22, 2014
41 people are currently reading
350 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
July 24, 2021
The year was 2014 and I was in the middle of doing my PhD. One of the things my university encouraged was that PhD candidates should get to nip off to an international conference somewhere and present a paper on what they had been up to. I got to go to two conferences – one in London and one in Manchester. While in Manchester, my supervisor and I were having a coffee in a bookshop and there was a book I spotted that was called something like ‘The Top 50 Things People Get Wrong About Something-or-Other’. I really don’t remember much about the book at all, certainly not the title, except that it had been written by a series of experts in a particular area and it was presenting the evidence against the myths about their field that got under their skin.
Now, I was doing my PhD on educational sociology and my supervisor is well-known in educational research Australia. And so, over coffee, we started chatting about what a great book it would make if we could get some experts to respond to some of the myths about education and what the research actually says about those myths. We got quite excited about it at the time. I remember going back to my room and typing up a list of possible questions, from why are girls so bad at maths?’ to ‘do girls do better in all-girl schools?’ (as an aside – girls don’t do bad at maths, they do much better than they or their teachers think they do – and there’s virtually no evidence that single sex schools are have any impact on girls’ education).
Anyway, my supervisor had a research institute to set up and I had a PhD to finish, so the book idea never quite got off the ground. You might notice that the book I’m reviewing was written in 2014. Clearly, David Berliner was also in that coffeeshop at the time, and listening quite intently to our conversation…
Perhaps there is no higher praise for a book than saying that you wish you’d written it yourself. That said, and as you can see, it is quite literally the case here. All the same, this would remain a fantastic book even if I didn’t wish I’d written it. Add to that the fact David Berliner is something of a hero of mine and I feel quite conflicted by the fact he’s clearly stolen my idea.
His work on the differences between expert and novice teachers is stunningly good and fascinatingly interesting. He has done significant work looking into the evidence supporting tourist teacher programs such as Teach for America – he doesn’t approve of these, which is hardly surprising, given his work on what makes an expert teacher. He has also done work on the dangers of privatisation to education, and on the impact of poverty on educational potential. He is, then, something of a god, even if one that is unlikely to be known outside of education research.
Which is why you should read this book. There are so many myths about education, so many things everyone just accepts as being true. The main problem education faces is that virtually all of us have been to school. We have all watched teachers over a very long time. Some of those teachers have been fantastic – others have been crap. One of the things this leads to is us believing that we would probably make damn good teachers ourselves – and if not, at least we definitely know what makes a good teacher. This is a bit like saying that because you can tell the difference between someone good at playing the piano and someone one who is terrible at it, that this (rather modest) power of discernment in some way qualifies you to play the piano.
The thing is, lots of research has been done into what makes schools, and the teaching and learning that goes on in schools, places that engage and help students to achieve. But because so many of us ‘just know’ the answer to what makes good schools, there is often a disconnect between what the research says and what are people’s gut feelings. Guts almost always win out over brains, it is a tragic thing, but tragically true too. For instance, Raewyn Connell did some research in the 1970s where she looked at various schools in Australia. In many of the working class schools, parents never finished school. The reasons why they never finished were often that they were bored to death by the strict and unchallenging teaching practices they encountered. But, and this is the tragic part, when they send their kids to school they figure that what will get their child over the line, that was missing in their own education is actually more of the things that forced them out in the first place – drill and kill teaching and strict discipline. These myths are tackled in this book.
This book presents 50 myths about education, each chapter starts with a succinct telling of the myth, and then tells you what the research actually says about these. The book is centred on the US education system – but the discussion on Finland (as the world’s greatest education superpower), or PISA, or home schooling, or ability streaming, or smaller class sizes, or homework, or school uniforms – are the kinds of myths everyone, everywhere will already have an opinion on. All this book does is give you some of the facts from the research that’s been done on these questions.
There’s a lovely book in Australia called ‘What Makes a Good School?’ The book is written by a journalist and a school principal. Anyway, one of the things the principal says is that sometimes, when schools need to make a significant change, they find it easier if they first set up a committee into whether or not the school should drop its school’s uniform policy. This draws all of the more nutty parents into a do or die struggle to retain the school uniform, and then the school can make the real change it felt it needed to make while a mock storm rages around uniforms.
I’m going to end with something that people probably don’t realise, but that is unquestionably true. People get very upset in the US and in Australia about our nations seeming to constantly slip down the international rankings of educational attainment. When PISA or one of the other international comparisons tests are published, inevitably a moral panic begins, teachers are blamed, hands are wrung. Do you want to know the easiest way to tell where your nation will end up on these rankings even before the tests have been distributed? The easiest way to predict your nation’s outcome is to look at the proportion of children your nation is happy enough to leave living in poverty. If your nation tolerates high rates of child poverty, it will do poorly on these tests – so, the US does poorly. And if you allow increasing inequity in your society, you will increasingly slip down the rankings as well, just as Australia has. The countries what invariably do better – Finland, Korea and so on – are almost all more equal and have fewer kids living in poverty. You can blame teachers all you want, but try as teachers might, they can’t fix the poverty of the students attending their schools. The best they can do is live with the consequences of it, and perhaps organise a breakfast club. If the pandemic has proven anything to us at all, it is that poverty is a policy choice made by our national governments.
Of course, I could be wrong about this, you know, despite the research evidence – and maybe allowing children to go to bed with a full stomach will do nothing to help them achieve more at school. Wouldn’t that be a tragic waste of food if curing child poverty did nothing to help us close the achievement gap…
Now, I was doing my PhD on educational sociology and my supervisor is well-known in educational research Australia. And so, over coffee, we started chatting about what a great book it would make if we could get some experts to respond to some of the myths about education and what the research actually says about those myths. We got quite excited about it at the time. I remember going back to my room and typing up a list of possible questions, from why are girls so bad at maths?’ to ‘do girls do better in all-girl schools?’ (as an aside – girls don’t do bad at maths, they do much better than they or their teachers think they do – and there’s virtually no evidence that single sex schools are have any impact on girls’ education).
Anyway, my supervisor had a research institute to set up and I had a PhD to finish, so the book idea never quite got off the ground. You might notice that the book I’m reviewing was written in 2014. Clearly, David Berliner was also in that coffeeshop at the time, and listening quite intently to our conversation…
Perhaps there is no higher praise for a book than saying that you wish you’d written it yourself. That said, and as you can see, it is quite literally the case here. All the same, this would remain a fantastic book even if I didn’t wish I’d written it. Add to that the fact David Berliner is something of a hero of mine and I feel quite conflicted by the fact he’s clearly stolen my idea.
His work on the differences between expert and novice teachers is stunningly good and fascinatingly interesting. He has done significant work looking into the evidence supporting tourist teacher programs such as Teach for America – he doesn’t approve of these, which is hardly surprising, given his work on what makes an expert teacher. He has also done work on the dangers of privatisation to education, and on the impact of poverty on educational potential. He is, then, something of a god, even if one that is unlikely to be known outside of education research.
Which is why you should read this book. There are so many myths about education, so many things everyone just accepts as being true. The main problem education faces is that virtually all of us have been to school. We have all watched teachers over a very long time. Some of those teachers have been fantastic – others have been crap. One of the things this leads to is us believing that we would probably make damn good teachers ourselves – and if not, at least we definitely know what makes a good teacher. This is a bit like saying that because you can tell the difference between someone good at playing the piano and someone one who is terrible at it, that this (rather modest) power of discernment in some way qualifies you to play the piano.
The thing is, lots of research has been done into what makes schools, and the teaching and learning that goes on in schools, places that engage and help students to achieve. But because so many of us ‘just know’ the answer to what makes good schools, there is often a disconnect between what the research says and what are people’s gut feelings. Guts almost always win out over brains, it is a tragic thing, but tragically true too. For instance, Raewyn Connell did some research in the 1970s where she looked at various schools in Australia. In many of the working class schools, parents never finished school. The reasons why they never finished were often that they were bored to death by the strict and unchallenging teaching practices they encountered. But, and this is the tragic part, when they send their kids to school they figure that what will get their child over the line, that was missing in their own education is actually more of the things that forced them out in the first place – drill and kill teaching and strict discipline. These myths are tackled in this book.
This book presents 50 myths about education, each chapter starts with a succinct telling of the myth, and then tells you what the research actually says about these. The book is centred on the US education system – but the discussion on Finland (as the world’s greatest education superpower), or PISA, or home schooling, or ability streaming, or smaller class sizes, or homework, or school uniforms – are the kinds of myths everyone, everywhere will already have an opinion on. All this book does is give you some of the facts from the research that’s been done on these questions.
There’s a lovely book in Australia called ‘What Makes a Good School?’ The book is written by a journalist and a school principal. Anyway, one of the things the principal says is that sometimes, when schools need to make a significant change, they find it easier if they first set up a committee into whether or not the school should drop its school’s uniform policy. This draws all of the more nutty parents into a do or die struggle to retain the school uniform, and then the school can make the real change it felt it needed to make while a mock storm rages around uniforms.
I’m going to end with something that people probably don’t realise, but that is unquestionably true. People get very upset in the US and in Australia about our nations seeming to constantly slip down the international rankings of educational attainment. When PISA or one of the other international comparisons tests are published, inevitably a moral panic begins, teachers are blamed, hands are wrung. Do you want to know the easiest way to tell where your nation will end up on these rankings even before the tests have been distributed? The easiest way to predict your nation’s outcome is to look at the proportion of children your nation is happy enough to leave living in poverty. If your nation tolerates high rates of child poverty, it will do poorly on these tests – so, the US does poorly. And if you allow increasing inequity in your society, you will increasingly slip down the rankings as well, just as Australia has. The countries what invariably do better – Finland, Korea and so on – are almost all more equal and have fewer kids living in poverty. You can blame teachers all you want, but try as teachers might, they can’t fix the poverty of the students attending their schools. The best they can do is live with the consequences of it, and perhaps organise a breakfast club. If the pandemic has proven anything to us at all, it is that poverty is a policy choice made by our national governments.
Of course, I could be wrong about this, you know, despite the research evidence – and maybe allowing children to go to bed with a full stomach will do nothing to help them achieve more at school. Wouldn’t that be a tragic waste of food if curing child poverty did nothing to help us close the achievement gap…
May 1, 2014
This is a book every teacher and parent should own...and if nothing else, should study the table of contents. Berliner and Glass (and associates -- makes me wonder how much Berliner really wrote) organize the myths and lies we hear every day from critics and reformers, and debunk them with research. I have learned the hard way, often research is frowned upon by people who've already made up their minds, but I keep sharing anyway.
Several of the issues -- testing, charters, funding,
TFA, vouchers, resegregation of schools, tax credits, homework, flunking based on test scores, longer school days and years, unions, are discussed at length. It's quote-able, and I've quoted.
I will keep this book close at hand as the next Legislative Session begins. I'll be able to turn immediately to lots of issues and counter their silly arguments. Will I change their minds? Probably not. But they'll know I was there.
Several of the issues -- testing, charters, funding,
TFA, vouchers, resegregation of schools, tax credits, homework, flunking based on test scores, longer school days and years, unions, are discussed at length. It's quote-able, and I've quoted.
I will keep this book close at hand as the next Legislative Session begins. I'll be able to turn immediately to lots of issues and counter their silly arguments. Will I change their minds? Probably not. But they'll know I was there.
February 26, 2017
Berliner and Glass and their research assistants set this book to show "many citizens conception of K12 public education in the United States is more myth than reality." While it does it admirably in parts, some of the answers some myths are also incongruent with answers given for other myths. The style and research support actually varies greatly between the various myths because of the large number of research assistants involved in the authorship. Each individual myth is basically an article on topic running down history and research quickly--and it is sourced. However, the sourcing is kind of bias and assertions made by researchers are often treated as conclusive to the research even if those assertions are more arguments than data or really editorializing.
The panoply of standard controversies are in the book: vouchers, charter school, homework, STEM focused education, PISA scores, teacher pay, etc. Many of the individual issues covered are sound, and many of the criticisms of I have seen leveled at this Berliner and Glass are conservative and stem from people anecdotal experience or fairly outdated views from Charles Murray and co. Yet there are serious issues with many of the assertions in the book. For example, the book indicates that not all students can learn everything and be expected to have same results, but then it denigrates both tracking and IQ tests. I agree with many of its criticisms of IQ tests, but the Flynn effect does indicate that peer groups do effect IQ and that people can learn beyond those limitations. Still the careful reader will see my frustration, and its not just on intelligence plasticity: Berliner attacks PISA scores, but it is crucial to several other myths in the book.
The strongest sections were "Myths about College and Career Readiness," which tackles hyperbole about STEM qualifications and the job placement (including that in many STEM fields we are already over-saturated almost as much as in the humanities), etc. This book, however, tackled no myths that are popular in Education schools but debunked outside of it: learning styles, while not mentioned, is not dealt with and many psychological myths held by teachers aren't dealt with as well. Special Education students being unsuccessful academically in general is not dealt with, and this too is a common myth among teachers--despite it being a plank of "progressive education" and the movement towards inclusion since the late 1990s. This book pretty much solely aims itself at myths about education but not commonly held by educators.
In that the agenda is shown--"Myths about Teachers" while often true reads like an NEA pamphlet--which makes moderates and conservatives distrust the book. Furthermore, some of the myths being debunked haven't even been dominant in the popular media for twenty years: Ed Hirsch's background knowledge and minimal literacy gets unfairly attacked and attacked as if it is mentioned often currently.
The panoply of standard controversies are in the book: vouchers, charter school, homework, STEM focused education, PISA scores, teacher pay, etc. Many of the individual issues covered are sound, and many of the criticisms of I have seen leveled at this Berliner and Glass are conservative and stem from people anecdotal experience or fairly outdated views from Charles Murray and co. Yet there are serious issues with many of the assertions in the book. For example, the book indicates that not all students can learn everything and be expected to have same results, but then it denigrates both tracking and IQ tests. I agree with many of its criticisms of IQ tests, but the Flynn effect does indicate that peer groups do effect IQ and that people can learn beyond those limitations. Still the careful reader will see my frustration, and its not just on intelligence plasticity: Berliner attacks PISA scores, but it is crucial to several other myths in the book.
The strongest sections were "Myths about College and Career Readiness," which tackles hyperbole about STEM qualifications and the job placement (including that in many STEM fields we are already over-saturated almost as much as in the humanities), etc. This book, however, tackled no myths that are popular in Education schools but debunked outside of it: learning styles, while not mentioned, is not dealt with and many psychological myths held by teachers aren't dealt with as well. Special Education students being unsuccessful academically in general is not dealt with, and this too is a common myth among teachers--despite it being a plank of "progressive education" and the movement towards inclusion since the late 1990s. This book pretty much solely aims itself at myths about education but not commonly held by educators.
In that the agenda is shown--"Myths about Teachers" while often true reads like an NEA pamphlet--which makes moderates and conservatives distrust the book. Furthermore, some of the myths being debunked haven't even been dominant in the popular media for twenty years: Ed Hirsch's background knowledge and minimal literacy gets unfairly attacked and attacked as if it is mentioned often currently.
June 29, 2014
A really interesting and concrete collection of short, concise essays that demystify some crucial misconceptions of education. I picked up this book because my pedagogy professor was reading it and recommended it to me. I really appreciate the organization and appearance of the book: you don't really know who wrote which section, but each section stands on its own, and there isn't a sense of repetition here (except to call attention to other myths previously discussed). There are at least two or three citations for each myth. A lot of the citations nod back to the main author, which could really go either way in terms of how it turns you, but he seems highly qualified, and we do need to publish.
There are a lot of the topics you would expect; vouchers, charter schools, private and public schools, testing, merit pay, etc. There are also a lot of refreshing topics that connect to tax credits, savings accounts, portfolio management, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), limitations of learning, poverty, and equality. The sections about finances and equality really made my blood boil.
One thing I really appreciate is how the authors focus on America's fixation on competition and being the best. With globalization comes competition, or so it seems, and it really seemed to heat up after WWII/Cold War. I also like that the authors go into the purpose of education, particularly while looking into claims that state-funded education should stop at the 6th or 8th grade (Not their claims, obviously.) and the idea of education serving as job training.
Obviously people who are engaged in teaching and administration should read it, and I think they will. But I think the book also exceeds this audience, and it should. It's well-written in addition to being scholarly, but this book takes the research out of the academic journals and into language for everyone. Voters need to read this when politicians make claims about how education isn't working. I read this book pretty soon after the CA court ruled against teacher's unions and tenure. The authors get into this topic very minimally, but I'd be interested to see how they would react. (I'm not a K-12 educator, but I certainly know enough of them.)
There are a lot of the topics you would expect; vouchers, charter schools, private and public schools, testing, merit pay, etc. There are also a lot of refreshing topics that connect to tax credits, savings accounts, portfolio management, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), limitations of learning, poverty, and equality. The sections about finances and equality really made my blood boil.
One thing I really appreciate is how the authors focus on America's fixation on competition and being the best. With globalization comes competition, or so it seems, and it really seemed to heat up after WWII/Cold War. I also like that the authors go into the purpose of education, particularly while looking into claims that state-funded education should stop at the 6th or 8th grade (Not their claims, obviously.) and the idea of education serving as job training.
Obviously people who are engaged in teaching and administration should read it, and I think they will. But I think the book also exceeds this audience, and it should. It's well-written in addition to being scholarly, but this book takes the research out of the academic journals and into language for everyone. Voters need to read this when politicians make claims about how education isn't working. I read this book pretty soon after the CA court ruled against teacher's unions and tenure. The authors get into this topic very minimally, but I'd be interested to see how they would react. (I'm not a K-12 educator, but I certainly know enough of them.)
August 22, 2014
This is a book written by two senior faculty at the Arizona State University School of Education and their "associates" (Ph.D students). The profs get about 10 "myths" each, and their stable of doc students handle the rest. As such, this is a book with close to 30 authors, and as a result it's a very inconsistent reading experience. The essays vary wildly in quality; the best are chiefly in the "general myths" and "myths about college and career readiness" sections, while the worst are undeniably the exclamation point-and-enthusiastically-bias-laden "myths about teachers", which read more like the talking points of an NEA publication than they do objective research. There are also a few examples of simply awful scholarship (e.g. an essay trying to make a point about the modern educational system by using an article written in the 1970's as its primary source); or essays that directly contradict each other (e.g. one of Berliner's early essays argues that PISA scores are bunk, but one of his students later cites them directly as evidence in his argument; which one is it?) Finally, there are instances where it seems as though the profs are just pushing their own opinions rather than citing balanced fact, such as Berliner's far-too-short and inadequately cited article about group work.
Overall, I thought some of this information was relatively useful scholarship, especially when it talks about corporate disinformation campaigns to change public education for the sake of making money (e.g. hyperbole about international competitiveness and STEM graduates). However, it also overall demonstrates the low quality of research that comes out of schools of education; I couldn't help regularly thinking back to Labaree's critiques of ed schools as I read this. The authors' decision to avoid citing all of their sources is also odd, and seems suspicious, as though they're hiding something. While the more solid essays paint a good picture of the 21st century American educational system that anyone with children or who works in education should know about, this is still very much a book that I can't take seriously past a certain point.
Overall, I thought some of this information was relatively useful scholarship, especially when it talks about corporate disinformation campaigns to change public education for the sake of making money (e.g. hyperbole about international competitiveness and STEM graduates). However, it also overall demonstrates the low quality of research that comes out of schools of education; I couldn't help regularly thinking back to Labaree's critiques of ed schools as I read this. The authors' decision to avoid citing all of their sources is also odd, and seems suspicious, as though they're hiding something. While the more solid essays paint a good picture of the 21st century American educational system that anyone with children or who works in education should know about, this is still very much a book that I can't take seriously past a certain point.
May 16, 2015
To start, I will say that I dislike the title very much: "Myths and Lies. . ." Come on! On the other hand, the authors are on to something. There is often a sense that privatization is inherently superior to public provision of goods and services. In the central Pennsylvania area, we get results of "report cards" on schools. Public schools aren't rated terribly high overall--but charter schools are even worse. Yet one claim is that what we need is more charters. The reality is: We need good schools--whether public or private.
This book lists 50 "myths and lies" about public schools in the U. S.. Then the authors examine available evidence about each.
Let's look at some examples. "Charter schools are better than traditional public schools." The authors look at a variety of research sources and suggest that the evidence is mixed. "School choice and competition work to improve all schools." The authors argue that the evidence does not fully support this. Indeed, I presented a paper at a professional conference once and observed that whether or not privatization worked depended on one statistical assumption. If you assume one approach, choice improves student performance; if one accepts another assumption, choice schools have no impact. "Teachers are the most important influence on school success." The authors answer in the negative. Indeed, if one looks at actual research, most of the success of students is based on their family socioeconomic status, their ethnic background, and students' previous performance. There is not a lot of "variation" left over for teachers, class size, methods of teaching, parental involvement in schools, and so on.
I do not like the title. Questions are answered in a somewhat dismissive way. But the book is provocative and raises qwrthwhile questions to think about. . . .
This book lists 50 "myths and lies" about public schools in the U. S.. Then the authors examine available evidence about each.
Let's look at some examples. "Charter schools are better than traditional public schools." The authors look at a variety of research sources and suggest that the evidence is mixed. "School choice and competition work to improve all schools." The authors argue that the evidence does not fully support this. Indeed, I presented a paper at a professional conference once and observed that whether or not privatization worked depended on one statistical assumption. If you assume one approach, choice improves student performance; if one accepts another assumption, choice schools have no impact. "Teachers are the most important influence on school success." The authors answer in the negative. Indeed, if one looks at actual research, most of the success of students is based on their family socioeconomic status, their ethnic background, and students' previous performance. There is not a lot of "variation" left over for teachers, class size, methods of teaching, parental involvement in schools, and so on.
I do not like the title. Questions are answered in a somewhat dismissive way. But the book is provocative and raises qwrthwhile questions to think about. . . .
March 13, 2015
A very uneven book which has enough pluses to warrant reading but you have to look past the agendas. Some essays are well-reasoned and well-written. Several are neither. Many raise at least as many questions as they answer.
The comparisons to Finland may be unfair but the author only mentions normalizing American results to account for povery levels. What happens if the same is done for Finnish students. Does the gap reappear? I don't know because he didn't mention it one way or the other.
Another essay claims that there is an abundance of STEM grads because he could not identify where all of the grads work. Did he include STEM grads who went to work on Wall Street, became lawyers, get logically demanding jobs in many other non-STEM fields? Many go into sales. Did those jobs get counted for or against the count of STEM job holders. Apparently that idea never occured to the authors. It never gets mentioned. I know STEM grads who followed each of those career paths. I have a degree in math and another in applied mechanics so I know exactly what STEM is and what grads can aspire to with their tech degrees; do the authors? I'm not convinced they do.
The most irritating might be the attempts to dispel one myth by perpetuating an alternate myth. Attempting to attack legacy preference as wicked, one essay ignores that W. soundly trounced both his Presidential opponents in college performance. The author insists he got in to Yale only because his Pa was runnning for the Senate (not a 90th percentile SAT score; the test baseline shifted in the 70s) but never mentions that Gore may have been allowed to stay at Harvard only because his Pa actually was in the Senate. I can't imagine having a freshman average lower than W's lowest class grade impresss anyone.
The comparisons to Finland may be unfair but the author only mentions normalizing American results to account for povery levels. What happens if the same is done for Finnish students. Does the gap reappear? I don't know because he didn't mention it one way or the other.
Another essay claims that there is an abundance of STEM grads because he could not identify where all of the grads work. Did he include STEM grads who went to work on Wall Street, became lawyers, get logically demanding jobs in many other non-STEM fields? Many go into sales. Did those jobs get counted for or against the count of STEM job holders. Apparently that idea never occured to the authors. It never gets mentioned. I know STEM grads who followed each of those career paths. I have a degree in math and another in applied mechanics so I know exactly what STEM is and what grads can aspire to with their tech degrees; do the authors? I'm not convinced they do.
The most irritating might be the attempts to dispel one myth by perpetuating an alternate myth. Attempting to attack legacy preference as wicked, one essay ignores that W. soundly trounced both his Presidential opponents in college performance. The author insists he got in to Yale only because his Pa was runnning for the Senate (not a 90th percentile SAT score; the test baseline shifted in the 70s) but never mentions that Gore may have been allowed to stay at Harvard only because his Pa actually was in the Senate. I can't imagine having a freshman average lower than W's lowest class grade impresss anyone.
July 14, 2014
Most of these are arguments that I have read before, but it was good to read this so I would be familiar with the chapters for assisting students who do education topics for their research papers. As with Berliner and Biddle's earlier work, it all boils down to the fact that the complexities of teaching and education just make it difficult to make any types of comparisons whether it is by country, state, district, school, or classroom. One is hardly ever comparing apples to apples. While I feel that this book sometimes distorts data and reports to their own purpose at times just as do the reports they criticize, at least it should make people question whether or not the corporate influences on education are about students or money. I especially was intrigued by the longest chapter in the book which had to do with the scarcity or not of STEM-ready candidates. Whether you agree with the positions or not, this is a good book to start difficult and complex conversations about educational policies and more people should be questioning the soundbytes that are served up by groups that claim to be supporting education but just might be supporting their own interests instead.
April 30, 2014
Superb book.
Most of the arguments and research are familiar to me. Berliner and Glass (and a host of researchers) concisely summarize key myths, hoaxes and outright lies that are shaping the national discourse on education, right now.
The big advantage of this book is that the table of contents gives the reader a quick index of false political and media narratives, a brief synopsis of who's saying what--and a carefully selected (and short) list of solid and relevant research to buttress their refutations.
Want to know what research says about why we're "behind" other nations in academic achievement? Charter schools? Merit pay? It's all here, in a handy, easy-to-use form and written in non-scholarly language.
Yes, it's all been said before. But the format is great.
Most of the arguments and research are familiar to me. Berliner and Glass (and a host of researchers) concisely summarize key myths, hoaxes and outright lies that are shaping the national discourse on education, right now.
The big advantage of this book is that the table of contents gives the reader a quick index of false political and media narratives, a brief synopsis of who's saying what--and a carefully selected (and short) list of solid and relevant research to buttress their refutations.
Want to know what research says about why we're "behind" other nations in academic achievement? Charter schools? Merit pay? It's all here, in a handy, easy-to-use form and written in non-scholarly language.
Yes, it's all been said before. But the format is great.
February 27, 2017
This book is horrible; the authors mock anyone who disagrees with their obvious agenda, all the while claiming that everyone ELSE is in the wrong for doing so. They call into question statistics that disagree with their obviously preformed conclusions, but then essentially tell the reader to trust, without question, the statistics that they provide that support their agenda. Very agenda driven, very poor interpretation of facts, very dishonest approach. I'd give it less than a 1-star rating, but Goodreads does not have a -1,000 star rating.
April 28, 2014
Calls BS on so many educational thoughts the public believes because of politicians, parents and other uninformed people. Educators should read this to be better informed.
December 7, 2016
at least it was technically sourced. not to a scientific standard, but sort of sourced. I might try to read it again a while in the future.
March 28, 2016
One of the best things about this book is that it was written in 2014, making it current. I recognize a few names, events, and trends. What I also like is that the authors recognize the fluid nature of education and realize that there will need to be an updated version in a few years.
The U.S. has been considered to be "behind" in education since the 1960s or '70s. Yet we value other things for our youth and base the data results on tests that include all students (from all socioeconomic backgrounds) and therefore show the average. Therefore, poverty - and not education - is the real issue, since the nation's climate affects school achievement.
What Berliner, Glass, and their 19 associates do is focus on 50 myths (of which there are more, but they wanted to condense it for a few reasons) that the American public as a whole tend to believe due to misinformation and skewed truth. They stress the need to look at parts of data in relative groups instead of always looking at data as a whole. They also include both sides of the political spectrum and don't blame any one party, group, or person. I knew most of these, but having them fleshed out with data to back up my beliefs/thoughts was very helpful. The numbers relate to the given myth.
1) We never did well with international tests, which aren't even all that great as they do show the mean scores, have translation issues, are not all aligned with curricula, and have other discrepancies between countries.
2) Private schools seem to be doing better only because they usually attend to those of higher socioeconomic status (SES), but in truth, public school students of the same caliber do the same or better on the same tests.
4) It is difficult to determine the effectiveness of charter schools because, even though they ARE public, each attends to different needs, curricular objectives, and have varying mission statements. They also don't answer to all of the same authorities as traditional public schools.
5) There are higher dropout and fewer graduation rates in cyberschools because they offer much less than traditional schools. Such education is also of lower quality since teachers are expected to do more, which has increased the turnover rate.
6) The data on homeschooled children rarely involves even half of the population. There are also gaps in data. Many homeschooled students do no have the readily available resources that we see in high success stories, including at least one parent with an adequate background.
What I do like is that Berliner et.al. don't knock homeschooling, but instead show that it's not usual for it to be superior to public schools...especially after elementary and (at times) middle school. They also explain that thinking of any alternate system as superior can be detrimental to students, teachers, and families.
7) School choice and competition have decreased equality for low SES and minority students, and don't reflect higher academic achievement among similar populations. Instead, they've increased school segregation where public schools may flounder.
8) Magazines that rate schools don't gather all or enough data. While I knew to take their findings with a grain of salt, I didn't realize just how skewed data could be.
9) Teachers are important, but not as much as neighborhoods, families, and environments. Saying that teachers are the most important influences in a child's education holds them accountable for factors completely out of their control.
10) It is one thing to know that U.S. teachers are paid less than their counterparts in other countries; it's another to read just how staggering the differences are. This country's low-tax philosophy along with other conditions means that teachers here are paid 15% (or more) lower than those in other countries relative to education and time teaching. The authors compare U.S. salaries to those in Canada, Korea, Japan, Estonia, New Zealand, and Scotland (among others).
11) Race to the Top increased pressures of No Child Left Behind with merit pay. Merit pay promotes corruption and impedes collaboration; fosters mistrust and a restricted curriculum; believes what teachers teach is akin to selling cars. Policymakers don't understand the complex nature of teaching.
12) Talented teachers are in schools with low SES but are hindered by factors out of their control, like incomplete prep programs and not having much support in the schools themselves. Good teachers who stay in these schools are often overlooked.
13) One of the Associates is an alum from Teach for America, and offers excellent insight on both good and bad aspects of the program. It considers bad teachers and unions to be the enemy, not business leaders and politicians for low-taxes. The program also assumes new teachers are better than experienced ones. Yet it offers support teachers may not receive in low income schools.
14) While subject matter is important, it's not the most important asset a teacher possesses. There are skills by which teachers pass on their knowledge that aren't inherent to everyone. The authors also mention the importance of pedagogical content knowledge.
15) Teacher unions have helped improve pay and conditions and oppose destructive models of teacher accountabilities. Overall, they're beneficial in retaining good teachers, leading to higher student achievements. Tenure protects teachers when there are disagreements about policies and advocating for students.
16) Student standardized test scores are no way to judge teacher education programs, particularly there are many other [non-education related] factors that impact testing. Also, most subjects aren't tested, not all grades are tested, and all novice teachers learn from experience (meaning their students' scores will be lower overall).
18) Studies show that holding a child back has little impact on future academic achievement and can have negative outcomes.
19) Tracking, especially at the lower levels (seriously, kindergarten?!), has little to no benefit for low-achieving students and modest academic benefits for high achievers. It limits education to one characteristic of many and is likely to segregate classes with non-academic characteristics.
20) There is little evidence that immersion programs are better than bilingual programs; in fact, there is more data that shows the reverse is true in terms of academic achievement and literacy skills for ELLs.
22) Many abstinence-only programs provide false/incomplete information and have little effect on sexual activity. What I found interesting is that more than 85% of Americans want students to have a comprehensive sex ed program, with information that includes abstinence, health issues associated with sexual activity, and contraception options.
25) There is little evidence that uniforms improve achievement and attendance. Implementing such policies tend to occur at the same time as other changes, making the data more muddy.
26) Lengthening the school day and year won't change curricula or resources, unless it's extended for a 12-month period. Therefore, there will be little impact on student learning.
27) Education is very complex with many variables and an unpredictable flow. Thus, programs that work in other districts, states, or countries may not work at another school, especially because they're not "prescriptions". The quote on page 130 sums this up very well.
28) Zero tolerance policies don't make schools safer since most crimes are from outside influences. The policies are also generally inflexible with regards to helping students.
29) There are very strong cases that support the benefits of pre-school and kindergarten programs, even more than I was aware of.
30) Programs for social and character development don't really have a benefit on behavior or academics, since character is learned and not taught. Also, these needs may be only met at school and not at home.
32) There is a belief that students are being dumbed down and that America is suffering. Yet more are taking tests for different reasons. The same/respective groups are doing the same, if not better, than they have in the past.
34) "Racially concentrated" schools exist, mainly because of school choice. Forcing integration has a positive impact on academic achievement and social interactions.
35) It is very important to keep in mind that school monies go to special education, not just general education. Thus, we can't say that more money isn't helping if the gen ed students are the only ones being tested/analyzed.
37) Some religious schools in the country receive public funds in the form of tax credits & vouchers. Because of this government financial support, the line between church and state is muddled and public schools may receive less money.
38) People believe that education is an individual/private benefit and not a public one. THIS BAFFLES ME!!! Students learn work-related skills (which helps the economy) and instills a common identity of "we" through social and collaborative interactions.
40) Tax credits and vouchers may be given to the poor...but they often can't afford the additional tuition fees beyond the given scholarship.
42) Not everyone can master all topics, and schools can't even teach full mastery. It can also be tough to determine those levels because of differences in how information is taught.
43) STEM skills can be discussed at length and used in non-STEM jobs due to the nuances within each skillset. But there are ambiguities in the data and different reports may be skewing the truth of the "shortage" of graduates and employees. STEM information also tends to disregard those with STEM degrees who aren't in such careers.
45) State exams are very poor indicators of student understanding. The authors also really showed just how much of the testing industry Pearson owns.
46) AP exams are rooted in elitism, since minorities may not have access to resources and/or courses.
47) College admissions are not based on grades and SAT or ACT scores, but many do look at sports and even more look at legacy.
48) Public education won't fix poverty (even though it helps the economy) without social and economic reforms. The authors delve into five reasons why they feel this is true.
Memorable Quotes
“Our public schools are about the last institution where children and families of different wealth, ethnicity, and cultural values come together.” – page 5
“Our nation and our children need a well-funded public school system that provides equal support to all its schools.” – page 46
“Teachers have become the punching bag for all sorts of problems faced by our nation, but these are problems teachers cannot influence. It is illogical to lay so much blame for so many of the ills of society on a profession with so little power to affect much more than the lives of 30 or so students in a class.” – page 50
“America’s public education system is one of its most valuable civic institutions—and the ones who understand its operations better than any outsider possibly could, the teachers, deserve to be treated as professionals. And if they are accorded that courtesy, they are expected to behave like professionals.” – page 82
“As a nation we would be well served if the question about ELLs was reframed, away from, ‘Why don’t they just learn English?’ to, ‘How can we develop a multilingual society to live peacefully and cooperate economically in our highly interdependent world?’” – page 109
“Blaming teachers for a failure to replicate effects may be convenient, but it also may be misleading (Weiss, Bloom, & Brock, 2013). It is akin to blaming a patient who does not get better with a drug that is supposed to work.” – page 130
“To believe that education will achieve what politicians lack the will to achieve Is to make our schools, their teachers, and even our children the scapegoats for society’s ills.” – page 233
The U.S. has been considered to be "behind" in education since the 1960s or '70s. Yet we value other things for our youth and base the data results on tests that include all students (from all socioeconomic backgrounds) and therefore show the average. Therefore, poverty - and not education - is the real issue, since the nation's climate affects school achievement.
What Berliner, Glass, and their 19 associates do is focus on 50 myths (of which there are more, but they wanted to condense it for a few reasons) that the American public as a whole tend to believe due to misinformation and skewed truth. They stress the need to look at parts of data in relative groups instead of always looking at data as a whole. They also include both sides of the political spectrum and don't blame any one party, group, or person. I knew most of these, but having them fleshed out with data to back up my beliefs/thoughts was very helpful. The numbers relate to the given myth.
1) We never did well with international tests, which aren't even all that great as they do show the mean scores, have translation issues, are not all aligned with curricula, and have other discrepancies between countries.
2) Private schools seem to be doing better only because they usually attend to those of higher socioeconomic status (SES), but in truth, public school students of the same caliber do the same or better on the same tests.
4) It is difficult to determine the effectiveness of charter schools because, even though they ARE public, each attends to different needs, curricular objectives, and have varying mission statements. They also don't answer to all of the same authorities as traditional public schools.
5) There are higher dropout and fewer graduation rates in cyberschools because they offer much less than traditional schools. Such education is also of lower quality since teachers are expected to do more, which has increased the turnover rate.
6) The data on homeschooled children rarely involves even half of the population. There are also gaps in data. Many homeschooled students do no have the readily available resources that we see in high success stories, including at least one parent with an adequate background.
What I do like is that Berliner et.al. don't knock homeschooling, but instead show that it's not usual for it to be superior to public schools...especially after elementary and (at times) middle school. They also explain that thinking of any alternate system as superior can be detrimental to students, teachers, and families.
7) School choice and competition have decreased equality for low SES and minority students, and don't reflect higher academic achievement among similar populations. Instead, they've increased school segregation where public schools may flounder.
8) Magazines that rate schools don't gather all or enough data. While I knew to take their findings with a grain of salt, I didn't realize just how skewed data could be.
9) Teachers are important, but not as much as neighborhoods, families, and environments. Saying that teachers are the most important influences in a child's education holds them accountable for factors completely out of their control.
10) It is one thing to know that U.S. teachers are paid less than their counterparts in other countries; it's another to read just how staggering the differences are. This country's low-tax philosophy along with other conditions means that teachers here are paid 15% (or more) lower than those in other countries relative to education and time teaching. The authors compare U.S. salaries to those in Canada, Korea, Japan, Estonia, New Zealand, and Scotland (among others).
11) Race to the Top increased pressures of No Child Left Behind with merit pay. Merit pay promotes corruption and impedes collaboration; fosters mistrust and a restricted curriculum; believes what teachers teach is akin to selling cars. Policymakers don't understand the complex nature of teaching.
12) Talented teachers are in schools with low SES but are hindered by factors out of their control, like incomplete prep programs and not having much support in the schools themselves. Good teachers who stay in these schools are often overlooked.
13) One of the Associates is an alum from Teach for America, and offers excellent insight on both good and bad aspects of the program. It considers bad teachers and unions to be the enemy, not business leaders and politicians for low-taxes. The program also assumes new teachers are better than experienced ones. Yet it offers support teachers may not receive in low income schools.
14) While subject matter is important, it's not the most important asset a teacher possesses. There are skills by which teachers pass on their knowledge that aren't inherent to everyone. The authors also mention the importance of pedagogical content knowledge.
15) Teacher unions have helped improve pay and conditions and oppose destructive models of teacher accountabilities. Overall, they're beneficial in retaining good teachers, leading to higher student achievements. Tenure protects teachers when there are disagreements about policies and advocating for students.
16) Student standardized test scores are no way to judge teacher education programs, particularly there are many other [non-education related] factors that impact testing. Also, most subjects aren't tested, not all grades are tested, and all novice teachers learn from experience (meaning their students' scores will be lower overall).
18) Studies show that holding a child back has little impact on future academic achievement and can have negative outcomes.
19) Tracking, especially at the lower levels (seriously, kindergarten?!), has little to no benefit for low-achieving students and modest academic benefits for high achievers. It limits education to one characteristic of many and is likely to segregate classes with non-academic characteristics.
20) There is little evidence that immersion programs are better than bilingual programs; in fact, there is more data that shows the reverse is true in terms of academic achievement and literacy skills for ELLs.
22) Many abstinence-only programs provide false/incomplete information and have little effect on sexual activity. What I found interesting is that more than 85% of Americans want students to have a comprehensive sex ed program, with information that includes abstinence, health issues associated with sexual activity, and contraception options.
25) There is little evidence that uniforms improve achievement and attendance. Implementing such policies tend to occur at the same time as other changes, making the data more muddy.
26) Lengthening the school day and year won't change curricula or resources, unless it's extended for a 12-month period. Therefore, there will be little impact on student learning.
27) Education is very complex with many variables and an unpredictable flow. Thus, programs that work in other districts, states, or countries may not work at another school, especially because they're not "prescriptions". The quote on page 130 sums this up very well.
28) Zero tolerance policies don't make schools safer since most crimes are from outside influences. The policies are also generally inflexible with regards to helping students.
29) There are very strong cases that support the benefits of pre-school and kindergarten programs, even more than I was aware of.
30) Programs for social and character development don't really have a benefit on behavior or academics, since character is learned and not taught. Also, these needs may be only met at school and not at home.
32) There is a belief that students are being dumbed down and that America is suffering. Yet more are taking tests for different reasons. The same/respective groups are doing the same, if not better, than they have in the past.
34) "Racially concentrated" schools exist, mainly because of school choice. Forcing integration has a positive impact on academic achievement and social interactions.
35) It is very important to keep in mind that school monies go to special education, not just general education. Thus, we can't say that more money isn't helping if the gen ed students are the only ones being tested/analyzed.
37) Some religious schools in the country receive public funds in the form of tax credits & vouchers. Because of this government financial support, the line between church and state is muddled and public schools may receive less money.
38) People believe that education is an individual/private benefit and not a public one. THIS BAFFLES ME!!! Students learn work-related skills (which helps the economy) and instills a common identity of "we" through social and collaborative interactions.
40) Tax credits and vouchers may be given to the poor...but they often can't afford the additional tuition fees beyond the given scholarship.
42) Not everyone can master all topics, and schools can't even teach full mastery. It can also be tough to determine those levels because of differences in how information is taught.
43) STEM skills can be discussed at length and used in non-STEM jobs due to the nuances within each skillset. But there are ambiguities in the data and different reports may be skewing the truth of the "shortage" of graduates and employees. STEM information also tends to disregard those with STEM degrees who aren't in such careers.
45) State exams are very poor indicators of student understanding. The authors also really showed just how much of the testing industry Pearson owns.
46) AP exams are rooted in elitism, since minorities may not have access to resources and/or courses.
47) College admissions are not based on grades and SAT or ACT scores, but many do look at sports and even more look at legacy.
48) Public education won't fix poverty (even though it helps the economy) without social and economic reforms. The authors delve into five reasons why they feel this is true.
Memorable Quotes
“Our public schools are about the last institution where children and families of different wealth, ethnicity, and cultural values come together.” – page 5
“Our nation and our children need a well-funded public school system that provides equal support to all its schools.” – page 46
“Teachers have become the punching bag for all sorts of problems faced by our nation, but these are problems teachers cannot influence. It is illogical to lay so much blame for so many of the ills of society on a profession with so little power to affect much more than the lives of 30 or so students in a class.” – page 50
“America’s public education system is one of its most valuable civic institutions—and the ones who understand its operations better than any outsider possibly could, the teachers, deserve to be treated as professionals. And if they are accorded that courtesy, they are expected to behave like professionals.” – page 82
“As a nation we would be well served if the question about ELLs was reframed, away from, ‘Why don’t they just learn English?’ to, ‘How can we develop a multilingual society to live peacefully and cooperate economically in our highly interdependent world?’” – page 109
“Blaming teachers for a failure to replicate effects may be convenient, but it also may be misleading (Weiss, Bloom, & Brock, 2013). It is akin to blaming a patient who does not get better with a drug that is supposed to work.” – page 130
“To believe that education will achieve what politicians lack the will to achieve Is to make our schools, their teachers, and even our children the scapegoats for society’s ills.” – page 233
October 29, 2017
A highly valuable book for anyone whose exposure to education policy has come from the media and politicians. As the title promises, the book lists 50 false or misleading claims, followed by short responses explaining why they are wrong. Though brief, the responses usually come at the myth with multiple lines of argument and are well referenced. Topics include private and charter schools, school choice, merit pay, unions, class size, flunking, school uniforms, preschool, tuition tax credits and spending in general, college prep, IQ tests, and more. Several of the myths (e.g., "Zero-tolerance is effective", "Teachers are paid too much") had me wondering that anyone would believe them, but all the write-ups include some information about where the bad ideas come from. (Usually, they are from private special-interests.) Others (e.g. the efficacy of homework and tracking) I had until now taken for granted. I came away knowing a lot more about the American education system, and the politics that surround it, than I did before. However, this is not a book to explain the education system, nor (by design) does it offer a program of recommendations. It lists and rebuts the myths, and that is all.
September 5, 2025
This book is very interesting! Our authors unpack so many different topics to help us understand, not just our education policy and standards, but also the interwoven cultural aspects that affect our nation, and subsequently, how our students learn.
By absolutely no means is this book a fun read. It's kind of a rough read in that it does highlight the worst of us. Also, because some of our myths and lies overlap, there are some repetitive facts and topics in the book, which makes sense writing-wise, but still makes it a bit of a slog.
By absolutely no means is this book a fun read. It's kind of a rough read in that it does highlight the worst of us. Also, because some of our myths and lies overlap, there are some repetitive facts and topics in the book, which makes sense writing-wise, but still makes it a bit of a slog.
December 7, 2021
I read it so you don't have to.
Many of the reviews of this book mention its bias, but man, they understated it. The bias is so severe, in multiple places the best possible interpretation is that the authors' are attempting to deliberately mislead the reader. The framing of these "myths" consistently relies on shoddy strawmen caricatures.
Many of the reviews of this book mention its bias, but man, they understated it. The bias is so severe, in multiple places the best possible interpretation is that the authors' are attempting to deliberately mislead the reader. The framing of these "myths" consistently relies on shoddy strawmen caricatures.
March 26, 2019
This book was a HUGE disappointment. I rarely quit a book in the middle but this is so poorly written that I could not continue. Don't get me wrong, I completely support the conclusions drawn here, but found many to be supported by their own set of myths and lies.
January 17, 2019
A good primer for discussions on the politics of education. Good in conjunction with other resources. I’m using it in a course I teach.
October 11, 2020
a book that every state legislator and school board member in America needs to read.
Want to read
July 25, 2021Dewey 370.973
Read
February 13, 2025edc 110 intro to american education
August 29, 2019
Politicians and Education do not mix well
Berliner asserts business views schools as cash cows, while politicians often divert public education money to charter and private schools.
Religious entities constantly attempt to insert their points of view into the public curriculum.
The Tony Bennet scandals (pp. 2-3) are worth the price of admission, at least to Hoosier readers.
Low poverty rate and academic “achievement” is considered (p.11), leaving the reader to consider if where one comes from is be best indicator of future success or lack of it, or even to consider that some charter schools may be a method for “successful” parents to prevent their offspring from interacting with those “not their kind.”
Shibboleths from all corners of academia are deservingly ruptured again and again. Such shibboleths sound, if you can remember, not unlike the hysteria of the Cold War when the commies would get you if you did not watch out. Just substitute Global Economy and it is the same old story… only worse.
But, obviously, the group I personally refer to as Those Who Rule Over Us have no use for public education, for the expense of teachers and facilities for non-legacied students. Another aggressive segment of the population object to public schools because they are not biblically based.
Indiana is a perfect example. In 2015 in the Hoosier State That Works, numbers of testing were released in early December. Different testing prepared by the governor appointed state school board turned “A” schools to less than satisfactory grades. At least the media treated public education kindly.
In 2017, a new governor and superintendent of public education were both promising to divert more money from public education into other products and they have succeeded.
In 2019, the Hoosier rulers are humiliating public education with i-read scores.
Such behavior on the part of TWROU is vindictive, unnecessary, self-serving, miserly, and contrary to the structure and purpose of public education.
While Berliner points out the false concept, we are left without means to correct them.
Berliner asserts business views schools as cash cows, while politicians often divert public education money to charter and private schools.
Religious entities constantly attempt to insert their points of view into the public curriculum.
The Tony Bennet scandals (pp. 2-3) are worth the price of admission, at least to Hoosier readers.
Low poverty rate and academic “achievement” is considered (p.11), leaving the reader to consider if where one comes from is be best indicator of future success or lack of it, or even to consider that some charter schools may be a method for “successful” parents to prevent their offspring from interacting with those “not their kind.”
Shibboleths from all corners of academia are deservingly ruptured again and again. Such shibboleths sound, if you can remember, not unlike the hysteria of the Cold War when the commies would get you if you did not watch out. Just substitute Global Economy and it is the same old story… only worse.
But, obviously, the group I personally refer to as Those Who Rule Over Us have no use for public education, for the expense of teachers and facilities for non-legacied students. Another aggressive segment of the population object to public schools because they are not biblically based.
Indiana is a perfect example. In 2015 in the Hoosier State That Works, numbers of testing were released in early December. Different testing prepared by the governor appointed state school board turned “A” schools to less than satisfactory grades. At least the media treated public education kindly.
In 2017, a new governor and superintendent of public education were both promising to divert more money from public education into other products and they have succeeded.
In 2019, the Hoosier rulers are humiliating public education with i-read scores.
Such behavior on the part of TWROU is vindictive, unnecessary, self-serving, miserly, and contrary to the structure and purpose of public education.
While Berliner points out the false concept, we are left without means to correct them.
February 16, 2015
I recommend this well-researched book for educators, parents, and anyone who has an interest in public education. This book gives objective and researched backed information about everything from homework to testing to school funding and ratings. In an era when public education and educators are under scrutiny (and in some cases, outright attack), this book is a breath of fresh air as it helps to debunk much of the criticism leveled at our schools.
March 31, 2016
Easy read, highly motivating. Found myself nodding in agreement with many of the myths exposed throughout the book. Teachers who CARE about what is happening to our public school system, and our children, should read this book!
Read
March 31, 2016Good Stuff
Easy read, highly motivating. Found myself nodding in agreement with many of the myths exposed throughput the book. Teachers who CARE about what is happening to our public school system, and our children, should read this book!
Easy read, highly motivating. Found myself nodding in agreement with many of the myths exposed throughput the book. Teachers who CARE about what is happening to our public school system, and our children, should read this book!
May 31, 2015
A must read for teachers, administrators and parents!
March 20, 2016
Controversial and current topics discussed and "exposed" as myths. Not all the articles were presented in an unbiased way. But it does make the reader think.
May 31, 2015
Interesting, thought provoking, but not the final word.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews