Reformster Fallacious Argument Made Simple

It is one of the great fallacies you will frequently encounter in the work of education reform.

I most recently encountered a very striking version of it in a new position-paper-advocacy-research-report-white-paper-thingy from FEE, the reformster group previously working for Jeb Bush and handed over (at least until Bush finishes trying to be President) to Condoleezza Rice.

The report (which I went over in more detail here) wants to make the case for charters and choice in education, and it starts by arguing that soon there will be way too few employed people paying for way too many children and retired geezers, therefore, school choice. The "report" runs to almost 100 pages, and ninety-some of those are devoted to mapping out the severe scrariosity of the upcoming crisis. The part that explains how school choice would fix this-- that gets a couple of pages. At its most critical juncture, the argument depends on one previously debunked study.

This is a relatively common fallacious argument structure, but if you are going to spend time in the education debates, it's useful to know it when you see it. The basic outline of the argument looks like this:

1) SOMETHING AWFUL IS GOING TO HAPPEN OH MY GOOD LORD IN HEAVEN LOOOK I EVEN HAVE CHARTS AND GRAPHS AND IT IS SOOOOOOOOO TERRIBLE THAT IT WILL MAKE AWFUL THINGS HAPPEN, REALLY TERRIBLE AWFUL THINGS LET ME TELL YOU JUST HOW AWFUL OH GOD HEAVENS WE MUST ALL BEWARE--- BEEE WAAAARREEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

2) therefore for some reason

3) You must let me do X to save us!

The trick here is to load up #1 with facts and figures and details and specifics. Make it as facty and credible as you possibly can (even if you need to gin up some fake facts to do it).

#3 is where you load in your PR for whatever initiative you're pushing.

And #2 you just try to skate past as quickly as possible, because #2 is the part that most needs support and proof and fact-like content, but #2 is also the place where you probably don't have any.

In a normal, non-baloney argument, #2 is the strongest point, because the rational, supportable connection between the problem and the solution is what matters most. But if you are selling baloney, that connection is precisely what you don't have. So instead of actual substance in #2, you just do your best to drive up the urgency in #1.

For example:

1) The volcano is gigantic and scary and when lava comes pouring out of it WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE HOT FLAMING DEATHS AND SUFFOCATE IN ASH AND IT WILL BE TERRIBLE

2) Therefore, for some reason

3) We should sacrifice some virgins

Or:

1) We are falling behind other countries and if we don't get caught back up we will be BEHIND ESTONIA!! ESTONIA!!!! GOOD GOD, WE MUST NOT FALL BEHIND THESE OTHER NATIONS ON THE TOTALLY MADE-UP INTERNATIONAL AWESOMENESS INDEX

2) Therefore, for some reason

3) We should adopt Common Core

You can manufacture the #1 crisis if necessary. But this can be even more effective if you use an actual real problem for #1:

1) Poor and minority children in this country keep getting the short end of the stick educationally, with fewer resources and less opportunity to break out of the cycle of poverty. This is a crappy way for our fellow Americans to have to live, and certainly leaving no pathway out of poverty is a violation of the American dream

2) Therefore, for some reason

3) We should make sure they all have to take a Big Standardized Test every year.

You just have to convey a sense of urgency about #1 and never ever let the conversation drift to #2. If people start trying to ask exactly how #3 actually helps with #1, you just rhetorical question them into silence.

Treat questioning #2 as if it's the same as questioning #1.Can't for the life of you see how the #1 of poverty and under-resourced schools is solved by more charter schools that drain resources from public education and only agree to teach the handful of students that they accept, while remaining unaccountable to anyone? Condoleezza Rice says you're a racist.

But it's #2 where the most important questions lie. Even if I accept that US schools are in some sort of crisis (which I don't, but if), exactly how would Common Core fix that? I do believe that we have a real problem with poverty in this country, but how, exactly, will giving poor kids standardized tests help with that?

If you have a gut feeling that a great deal of the reformster just doesn't make sense, #2 is where the problem mostly lies. Most reformster arguments involve using a loud #1 and a slick #3 to cover up a non-existent #2.

1) Some students score low on Big Standardized Tests-- They GET LOW SCORES! LOW SCORES THAT ARE A BAAAAAAD THING! True, they're a bad thing because we've set up a system of artificial imposed punishments for low scores but hey, still-- LOOOOWWWW SCOOORESSSSSS!!!!!

2) Therefore, for some reason

3) There should be no tenure for teachers

There's no connection at all. We could just as easily say

3) Taxpayers should buy charter operators a pony

3) The National Guard should shoot a badger

3) We should sacrifice a virgin

But of course badgers and ponies and virgins aren't nearly as profitable as charters and tests. That, and I think some folks really believe that #2 is there when it just isn't. Either way, it's important to know what the real connection is before you start sacrificing virgins.