lamenting the pervasive and continuous failure of K-12 schools to educate their graduates at an adequate level of literacy. All three proposed cures for the problem. One document written by a private school association called for a voucher system which would give money to private schools and solve the problem of teachers who have grown lazy outside the market economy. The second, by a university committee, explained the need of teachers to know and use basic research. It called for two additional full-time professors on the faculty of the School of Education. The third, by a private consulting firm, described the need of performance feedback to teachers. It called upon school districts to buy a consulting package on peer observation, evaluation, and coaching. What is interesting about these three proposals is that they claim to be offering a program for the improvement of the schools and yet they are part of the problem. In their rush to explain why schools need what they have to sell, these three documents provide only the most superficial explanation of the literacy crisis, never acknowledging that the present literacy crisis is not the same as those in the past. Ignoring the distinctions between present problems and those of the past robs teachers and schools of their history and leaves the impression that teachers and schools have never accomplished anything. This general message of failure increases the apparent value of the item for sale-the voucher system, professors of education, a peer coaching package-but at the same time demoralizes the teaching staff and confuses nearly everyone. Both the demoralization and confusion reduce