Back in the early eighties, Don Henley penned the song “Johnny Can't Read” lamenting the fact that there are many “Johnnys” out there who can't read—and, by inference, can't function well in society. Whatever one thinks of Henley’s take on our nation's “Johnny’s”, few dispute that many of our students perform splendidly, while a certain percentage, to put it charitably, fail to thrive.

The so-called achievement gap has spurred conversation, theories and research examining the role/merits of school funding, privatization, standardized testing, phonics instruction, etc. Ohio has addressed all these possible remedies, but has tied its future to one remedy above all the others. During the Voinovich and Taft Administrations, Ohio led the nation in the school privatization movement, with prolific funding of for-profit charter schools and school vouchers. Privatize the system, or as much of it as possible, and the market will fix the problem. Then, more “Johnnys” will be able to read. Or, will they?

According to a 2006 study released by the Department of Education, when students of similar backgrounds are compared, public school students generally either match or exceed the performance of students in private schools.

If you know this positive information (you are in a distinct minority) about public schools, congratulations--you have done your homework. If not, it might be because the Bush Administration released this report not with fanfare and celebration, but quietly after 5pm on a Friday last summer (the 14th of July, to be exact). Perhaps it is irritating when data conflict with the carefully marketed grand narrative about the magic of the

market/privatization as applied to all things. Imagine the audacity, research that actually seeks to isolate the impact of schools themselves and fails to present a distorted, de-contextualized comparison of public and private school performance. How dare scientific rigor get in the way of the grand project of undermining confidence in public schools?

Even worse, the cherished “charters”, privately managed often for-profit schools, have consistently served Johnny poorly in virtually every study that has been conducted. Not surprising when you consider the incentives that spur private business—profits—and the ways these profits are often derived by cutting costs, including those associated with special education students, extra-curricular activities, school nurses, etc.. Distressing, however, when one considers that public dollars that flow out of public schools to the for-profits don’t much reduce the costs of operating the de-funded public schools the students leave. Last year Lakewood public schools lost $700,000 to schools that they have no say in operating. In essence, we fund more schools than our community through its democratic process determined was appropriate given our educational goals and financial situation.

The worst effect of the privatization movement is not, however, its anti-democratic, anti- public accountability ideology, nor its financial drain on public schools, nor even its abject failure to deliver on promised results. Its most insidious outcome is its opportunity costs. We spend so much time either promoting or debunking the myth of market magic, as applied to public education, that we miss the opportunity to act on the most meaningful research on why some children fail miserably in whatever type of school they might be. To be sure, there are many and varied reasons that some students thrive while others founder. Research clearly identifies two at-home factors outside the direct control of K-12 schools that greatly impact educational performance: vocabulary used in the home and parental attitudes toward their children and life in general.

The classic research of Betty Hart and Todd Risley, University of Kansas Child Psychologists, found a significant relationship between language exposure in early life and IQ scores, which in turn have a strong, positive correlation with school performance. (For a full rendering, read “Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Life of Young American Children"). This research showed that future high IQ children by age three knew twice as many words as their low IQ counterparts, a result of both the amount of interaction with adults and the quality of that interaction. For example, on average, the students with brighter academic futures heard 487 utterances per hour in the home, including talking, singing and rhyming games; whereas children with academic difficulties ahead had an impoverished language experience, hearing on average about 178 utterances per hour.

(One side note: whatever the limitations of IQ tests, grades or other measures of intelligence/achievement, there is no getting around the fact that success in our society has much to do with mastery of language. Try to become a doctor or a lawyer without a strong vocabulary.)

Hart and Risley also found significant differences in the types of words and underlying attitudes conveyed between future high and future low achievers. The high achievers heard many more encouragements, words of praise and approval (“nice climbing, but that’s dangerous, so you’ll have to get down”) whereas the low achievers tended to hear prohibitions and discouragement (“get down from there, you idiot”). Research by Jeanne Brooks-Gunn of Columbia University found that specific elements of parental nurturance to be positively associated with better academic outcomes, including more encouragements, more sensitivity and a less detached attitude toward children and their learning.

Thus, the intellectual and emotional infrastructure of learning and memory is largely in place before Johnny ever walks into kindergarten. Behind from day one, the script often plays out as follows. Around third or fourth grade, Johnny begins to realize that he is not keeping up with classmates, with teacher expectations, or even his own notion of success. He begins to get discouraged, disengaged and even disruptive, as a way of blunting the frustration of failure. Even though Johnny is hard wired to be intellectually curious, he begins to exhibit two of the more dysfunctional and unnatural characteristics imaginable—“laziness and apathy.” His disengagement eases the pain of failure or inadequacy—at the price of limiting his imagination of what his life could be.

As the years progress, Johnny finds Suzy and others in the same boat, and they begin to form individual and group identities that includes a rejection of school. Not always tragic in and of itself—some school “rejecters” turn out to be productive, creative and happy adults. Often, however, school rejecters reject not just school but learning in general, to their peril and to the detriment of their communities. So, is there anything we can do to meaningfully address this issue?

If we are serious about the achievement gap, we will begin to frame the problem as one of society, not exclusively schools. Our popular culture, values and home life should be critiqued and challenged by those who value the intellectual and emotional development of all of our children. We need to be frank about the consequences of a language impoverished home life filled with discouragement. Wherever possible, we need to offer at-risk students greater attention and care during the early years, before an identity associated with school disengagement can take root. We need to recognize that an equitable education does not mean treating everyone the same, but giving those who need it early and continuous intervention, especially with respect to language development.

Finally, we need to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of those middle and high school students who we deem to be “lazy” or “apathetic” are actually not so. Despite their flagging self esteem and acting out behaviors, they still have a spark within them that yearns to learn and access a rich range of life experiences. This is where creative, emotionally engaged teachers come in, with an attitude of never giving up on our at-risk kids. Schools and teachers clearly matter. But we do ourselves a profound disservice by thinking, contrary to all available evidence, that any school reforms by themselves can solve a problem rooted in the larger society.