Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
    • Think Again
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
  • Events
  • Scholars Program

Pessimists or pragmatists?

Richard Rothstein
8.30.2006

In the Times on August 9, Diana Jean Schemo, referring to the "Coleman Report" and to my 2004 book, Class and Schools, wrote that "while schools can make a difference for individual students, the fabric of children's lives outside of school can either nurture, or choke, what progress poor children do make academically" (see here; subscription required). Joel I. Klein, the New York City schools chancellor, responded in a letter to the Times, and in the Gadfly, Chester E. Finn, Jr., criticized the Schemo article, insisting that "many terrific schools manage to overcome precisely that challenge [of poverty and other social disadvantage]" ("March of the Pessimists," August 17).

I have written a response to the Gadfly editorial and to Mr. Klein, which I invite Gadfly readers to consider at http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/Rothstein_on_Finn.

My response makes these points:

  • Mr. Finn confuses schools that improve disadvantaged student outcomes with schools that "close the gap."
  • Mr. Finn and others advocate "value-added" as the preferred (to score level comparisons) way to evaluate schools, but in doing so, they implicitly acknowledge Ms. Schemo's point. "Value-added" makes sense only if you agree that students who, largely because of social and economic disadvantage, start from a lower point, cannot reasonably be expected to achieve at the same average level as middle class students.  
  • No "schools that beat the odds" cited by Mr. Finn or Mr. Klein provide evidence that schools can largely overcome the learning disadvantages of children from socially and economically distressed backgrounds. They may be good schools, but that is much less than what is claimed.
  • Mr. Finn suggests that schools can overcome social disadvantage by substantially increasing students' time in school. This suggestion also implicitly acknowledges Ms. Schemo's point and, if implemented, would be far more expensive than even the most radical school reformers now contemplate.

Richard Rothstein
Research associate, Economic Policy Institute
[email protected]

Tags: Chester E. Finn, Jr. Economic Policy Institute Joel Klein New York Richard Rothstein

Richard Rothstein is a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute and a visiting lecturer at Teachers College, Columbia University. He is formerly an education columnist for the New York Times.

Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]