Bridging Differences

Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch have found themselves at odds on policy over the years, but they share a passion for improving schools. Bridging Differences will offer their insights on what matters most in education.

Main

September 2, 2008

This Strange New Era of "Reform"

Bridging Differences returns today with this entry from Diane Ravitch.

Dear Deborah,

Welcome back from vacation. School is open, and it’s time to start bridging differences. Let’s see what we can do to clarify the deep undercurrents in American politics that are changing what happens in the schoolhouse, and, in some cases, seem likely to change the very nature of the schoolhouse.

In my historical studies, I have usually found that the public debates about schooling may be heated, but teaching and learning change glacially. This has always been a source of frustration to reformers, whether they are progressives or essentialists, because they would like to prescribe big changes and see them happen fast. Ordinarily, that doesn’t happen.

Yet in these past six years, since the enactment of No Child Left Behind, we have seen bigger changes in daily classroom life than anyone could have imagined. The testing requirements of the law now define teaching and learning. As the old adage goes, what is tested is what is taught. So in district after district, all across the land, students are being prepared for the state tests in reading and math, often to the exclusion of other subjects, even recess.

This we all know. But something else is happening that is in some ways even more ominous than the Sword of Damocles that hangs over so many public schools.

We used to see a partisan divide about the big issues in education policy. The Democratic party advocated more funding for disadvantaged students and policies that promoted equity. The Republican party advocated choice, privatization, merit pay, and accountability, and criticized the teachers’ unions as the main obstacles to reform.

In this election cycle, that familiar divide has changed dramatically. The Republicans still advocate choice, privatization, merit pay, and accountability and are still critical of the teachers’ unions. But now there is a significant movement within the Democratic party that advocates the same positions as the Republicans.

The leading advocates of choice, privatization, merit pay, and accountability appeared in a panel discussion during the Democratic convention, led by Chancellor Joel Klein of New York City and Chancellor Michelle Rhee of Washington, D.C. Along with such colleagues as the Rev. Al Sharpton and Mayor Adrian Fenty of the District of Columbia, they present themselves as the true voices of “reform.” Listen to them and what one hears is the same views that the Republicans have been expressing since at least 1996, when Republican candidate Bob Dole launched an attack on the teachers’ unions. Now it is Rhee and Fenty trying to persuade D.C. teachers to abandon the tenure rights that their union won for them.

The “reforms” of the Klein-Sharpton-Rhee group are not at all new. They attack the teachers’ union, bash teachers, demand merit pay, promote charter schools and private management, and laud testing, lots more testing. They love NCLB, and they want it toughened. At bottom, they would like to see the public school system of the United States run like a business, with employees hired and fired at will. They are ready to privatize and outsource whatever they can, trusting private managers to succeed where the public sector (with themselves as leaders) has failed.

A number of articles recently have jumped on the idea that charters, testing, merit pay, etc. are the cutting edge of reform. (See here and here.)

It is curious, is it not, to see these two superintendents present themselves as successful reformers. Rhee has only recently begun her tenure, so it is indeed premature to anoint her a success, as so many in the media have already done, based solely on her bold rhetoric and her audacious effort to undercut the teachers’ union. Klein has been chancellor of the New York City public schools since the fall of 2002; he implemented his “reforms” in 2003. Since then, NYC has seen no significant gains on NAEP in 4th grade reading, 8th grade reading, or 8th grade math. The city’s gains in 4th grade math are suspicious, since the exclusion rate for that grade and subject was an eye-popping 25 percent, something not seen in any other district tested by NAEP. At the same time, the city’s education spending increased by a startling 79 percent.

Some formula for success. Some business model.

So this is the strange new era we are embarked upon, in which the mantle of “reformer” has passed to those who would dismantle public education, piece by piece.

Diane

March 26, 2007

Public choice under public scrutiny

Dear Diane,

"We have no final answers. We keep negotiating." I may put it on my bumper-sticker.

RDT expressed a similar concern to yours on our Blog: the risk of Balkanization that comes with choice. But that's where we are now. Schools are more than ever segregated by race and class, and even religiosity and ethnicity. Largely by geography plus private and selective school choice. Even when parents send their kids to diverse schools, there is segregation within the schools. Kids today are largely educated only in the company of others like themselves.

Do I like this? No. I think diversity on the basis of class, race and schooling-smarts is enormously important. But how to get there? Step one: Choice should not be confused with vouchers or privatization. Step two: think public choice under public scrutiny.

The default position I hold is that decisions should be as close as possible to those who know the child and family and school best. I start there and then….. move up the ladder.

Who should do the scrutinizing? Each school constituency for starters, local taxpayers (especially if they are paying the bill), state judiciaries and legislatures and their delegated educational bodies, and finally Federal legislatures and the Federal judiciary.

What should be scrutinized? Should it include what is taught or not taught and how, school rules and provisioning, and who goes to school with whom?

Re content and pedagogy. I am less worried about whether they teach evolution than you are Diane. At present we teach Science so poorly that I suspect more graduates of our schools believe in astrology than astronomy. I'm for continuing to use the courts to defend the religion/state divide—sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Given the Supreme Court we have now…… But more mandates won't solve it—about which we disagree whether we are talking about science or history. Actually, Diane, I fear there will be too much uniformity even without a single mandate or national test. As for pedagogical freedom, as the Blog responses we got on Reading First remind me, there will be those who in the name of Science or Morality will want to mandate the one-best-way. I hope we can derail the purveyors of final truths in the name of Proven Best Practice of all sorts by lowering the temptation that centralized power offers them.

Re rules and provisioning. I am concerned about racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, free speech…as they effect schooling decisions. These require constant surveillance—with or without choice. If schools were ever to become centers for practicing and studying democracy we might have less trouble over time with such issues. Until then (and after), I'm for public scrutiny. E.g. I'm for immediately passing a bill that ties federal aid to closing the funding gaps within each state.

Who should we go to school with? In many rural and suburban communities choice is not feasible and promoting diversity remains illusive. But where choice is feasible it can be used to promote integration. I regret that we cannot control for race, but we could ensure that the families are the choosers not the schools, and we could ensure that other forms of diversity are honored. It will be hard to convince powerful subgroups who like schools that are selective on the basis of testing or audition skill to let such advantages go. Meantime we can use every tool available to increase diversity through choice.

How will we hold folks accountable under such chaos and anarchy? Tune in later. It may be that acknowledging the "chaos" is the first step toward building democratic forms of accountability and that democracy starts with an uncomfortable reliance on human judgment.

Deborah

Deborah Meier


ravitch.jpg

Diane Ravitch

The opinions expressed in Bridging Differences are strictly those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Get Bridging Differences by e-mail. Enter your e-mail here:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Advertisement
Powered by
Movable Type 3.34
<

EW Archive