High Stakes for Edison: A Rejoinder to John Chubb

Abstract

In this rejoinder to Mr. Chubb, Mr. Campbell argues that Edison offers feel-good measures without really solving any of the problems of schools in poverty. Defending his original argument, Campbell cites a RAND study that questions the results Chubb claims. ********** WE CAN do one of two things about closing the educational achievement gap between the haves and the have-nots in this country: we can choose to ameliorate the conditions that lead directly to low achievement, or we can treat the symptoms of these conditions. Edison Schools, Inc., is a manifestation of the latter approach. Instead of focusing on the real sources of the achievement gap, it turns our attention to the most superficial forms of teaching and learning: feel-good measures that ease the symptoms and make the pain, and the calls for substantive reforms, go away. Treating primarily the symptoms of this social disease represents a business opportunity for companies like Edison. The rationale seems unimpeachable: do well by doing good. That is, make a lot of money for you and your investors while doing something noble for the less fortunate among us. But if we were to seriously engage in ameliorating the conditions that lead directly to low achievement, we would be taking away this business opportunity. There would be no business plan for companies like Edison, because the target market would not exist. The simple fact is that, without suffering, companies like Edison would not only go out of business, they would never have gone into business in the first place. With Edison, then, we must deal with the moral question that arises when we consider the economics of suffering. But doesn't something have to be done? And the first response to such a question is another question: not by Edison, then by John Chubb would argue that at least Edison is doing something to help. And even if this help is not perfect, supporters of Edison's efforts would argue that it's better than nothing. But I wonder: Is it better than nothing? Imagine if we construed the question If not by Edison, then by whom? as a real question, rather than a rhetorical one. Then we're left asking: What are we to do? And who is responsible for doing it? I do not blame Edison Schools, Inc., or Chubb for seeking to make a profit from low-income minority children. It is my sincere belief that neither Chubb nor Edison CEO and founder Chris Whittle nor anyone else in the Edison corporation has consciously set out to profit at the expense of poor children. Indeed, I take them at their word: they want to help these children. But the critical questions are these: What does this kind of help look like? What are the consequences of this kind of help? And does this form of help serve to make other problems worse? As Kenneth Salt-man observes so powerfully in his book The Edison Schools, it may be that Edison schools work. But the question of what they work at doing has largely gone unexamined. As I argued in my original article, Edison, Inc., and other companies like it are symptoms of a broader social phenomenon that looks to for-profit corporations for answers to today's most vexing educational challenges. I refer to this broader phenomenon as a disease for two reasons: 1) it is indicative of a pathological approach to educating low-income minority children, and 2) it is indicative of the discomfort (dis-ease) that surrounds the problem of educating these children. Though Chubb and I clearly disagree on a number of things, we just as clearly agree that these are desperate times for America's neediest children. And as we all know, in desperate times, people are more likely to do desperate things. Edison, Inc., is one such desperate thing. It is hardly surprising that Chubb, the chief education officer of Edison Schools, Inc., vigorously defends his employer. Indeed, he is one of the founders of the Edison enterprise. …