In "The Dems Go Back to School," (Gadfly, September 1, 2005) you refer to the "loopy left arguments" of Richard Rothstein who, you claim, "declare[s] education improvement impossible until poverty is eradicated."
Rothstein has never made such an argument. He has consistently said that social, economic and educational reform must proceed simultaneously. (The subtitle of his book, Class and Schools, is "Using Social, Economic and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap.") He has shown that it will be impossible to close (as opposed to narrow) the achievement gap between poor and middle class children without diminishing the great inequalities that presently exist and that have, since you wrote your review, been brought dramatically to the nation's attention by the inequitable circumstances of hurricane victims in New Orleans. We should be able to have a more meaningful discussion, or debate, about the extent to which non-school factors affect school outcomes and what policies besides school reform can lead to student and school improvements.
The Gadfly has, in the past, entertained a more meaningful discussion. On June 17, 2004, after publishing a review of Class and Schools, Gadfly published a response from Rothstein emphasizing that "that many of the school models and teachers frequently held up as gap-closing paragons (like several of the Heritage schools, the KIPP Academies, the Pentagon schools, Jaime Escalante) do excellent work and likely succeed in providing disadvantaged children with better educations than they would otherwise receive. My objection was not to claims that these are good schools, but to claims that they can close the achievement gap without simultaneous reform in the social and economic backgrounds from which children come to school."
I believe that you have misread the CAF-CAP report if you think it is an endorsement of NCLB and a refutation of an education improvement perspective that incorporates social and health policies. You seem to conclude—because Roger Wilkins is both co-chair of the task force that issued the report, and father of Amy Wilkins, "an architect of NCLB" —that the report is itself an endorsement of that legislation. Such a conclusion does a disservice both to Roger and Amy Wilkins, who should be credited with speaking for themselves. The commentary by Roger Wilkins (who is also a board member of the Economic Policy Institute), published along with the CAF-CAP report makes clear that Mr. Wilkins' (and the report's) views are consistent with what Rothstein has recommended: large interventions before school age; more schooling through after school and summer programs; and extensive social and health services delivered through "community schools."
Lawrence Mishel
President
Economic Policy Institute