COMMENTS: DR.

DIANA RAVITCH

Comments: Dr. Diana Ravitch on Education

EDUC 6326 Educational Research and Scholarly Writing Section KS56
Dr. L. C. Spencer
February 1, 2016
Carolyn Elizabeth Barrette

COMMENTS: DR. DIANA RAVITCH

Comments: Dr. Diana Ravitch on Education

We need a long-term plan that strengthens public education and rebuilds the education profession.
We need better-educated teachers who have degrees in the subjects they teach; we need principals
who are themselves master teachers, since they are the ones who evaluate and support the
teachers; and we need superintendents who are knowledgeable educators, since they make crucial
decisions about curriculums, instruction and personnel. We must ensure that every student has the
benefit of a coherent curriculumand we must attend to the conditions in which children live,
because their ability to attend school and to learn is directly influenced by their health and the
well-being of their families.
Dr. Diane Ravitch, from Why I Changed My Mind, The Nation, June 14, 2010

In the benchmark (and certainly controversial1) article noted above, Dr. Diane Ravitch
(former Assistant Secretary of Education for Research -- George H.W. Bush Administration) strongly
asserts that the governing philosophy of NCLB2 [is] measure and punish. I conclude that this approach,
which uses accountability as a stick to threaten schools, has failed and further observes,
Testing experts suggest that this intense emphasis on test preparation is wasted, because
students tend to learn test-taking techniques rather than the subject tested, and they are
not likely to do well on a different test of the same subject for which they were not
prepared (Ravitch, p. 20).
I agree with Dr. Ravitch, having observed that invoking high-stakes testing to help insure Common

Core State Standards are met makes delivery of a consistent curriculum virtually unattainable.
Tethering test scores to rewarding teacher performance sets up a system where frequent abuse is
inevitable, negating the validity of national score comparisons. Indeed, as Dr. Joel H. Spring
notes in his landmark textbook, American Education, Texas cities are among the largest
perpetrators of high-stakes testing cheating scandals. I do not find this surprising, having
1 Dr. Gregory Dempster offers an incisive rebuttal to Dr. Ravitch; see Dempster, G. M., Ph.D. (Summer 2013). In
defense of neoliberal education policy or, why Ravitch is wrong about school choice. The Independent Review,
18(1), 103-113. Retrieved from https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_18_01_07_dempster.pdf.

2 No Child Left Behind Act of 2002

COMMENTS: DR. DIANA RAVITCH

witnessed (since 2004) the frantic terror experienced by numerous Texas teacher friends as they
transitioned from teaching with joy and dedication to coaching with fear, trembling and
frustration to meet school standardized testing goals. Overall, implementation of the Common
Core State Standards has proved divisive and destructive and provided more harm than health to
our national educational standards. Dr. Ravitchs note concerning this trend extending beyond the
administration she served is illuminating, underscoring the premise of where money speaks,
actions follow3; she explains:
Obamas Race to the Top competition dangled $4.3 billion before cash-hungry states. To
qualify for the money, states had to remove any legal barrier to the expansion of charter schools.
States also had to agree to create data systems making it possible to evaluate teachers by their
students test scores. And they had to pledge to transform or turn around low-performing
schools (Ravitch, p. 22)Obamas emphasis on evaluating individual teachers by students test
scores has set off a frenzied effort by states to rewrite their laws in hopes of snaring some of the
federal billions (Ravitch, 24).
Dr. Ravitch expresses particular concern over the implementation and impact of charter school
development, noting, Charters vary widely in quality. Some are excellent, some are abysmal, most are
somewhere in between. She cited economist Margaret Raymonds Stanford University study which
found that only 17 percent of charters outperformed a matched public school and that Now the charter
sector sees itself as competition for the public schools. Some are profit-driven; some are power-driven
(Ravitch, p. 22).

3 Reminiscent of the biblical admonition that where ones treasure lies, there, too, ones heart will reside.

COMMENTS: DR. DIANA RAVITCH

(Tornoe, 2015, United Federation of Teachers, New York Teacher Issue)

I concur. As the Tornoe cartoon above demonstrates, a number of states make it a practice
to develop charter schools via public school conversion, raising a legitimate concern for school
students who in their campus conversions are effectively condemned to an often substandard
educational fate. States allowing establishment of new charter schools through public or private
business initiatives foster concerns as well. Dr. Spring observes that the National Council of
Education Providers4 has declared that private corporate developers are not hatching a satanic
plot to destroy public education (Spring, p. 205); yet, he continues, the criticism voiced
concerning numerous charter schools dearth of diversity and innovative creativity is valid. He
reinforces his point by noting that profit-oriented motivations often inherent in charter school
development can easily quash diversity and creativity. Vicki L. Phillips, director of the
Education Division for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, eloquently argues that charter
schools are not a public school systems issue alone; indeed, she advocates increased private
sector investment into both public and charter schools:
At the Gates Foundation, we believe it's all about the students, too. Thats why we've
invested in public charter schools, which can be incubators of innovation. And it's why
we've invested in traditional district schools, many of which have shown the ability to be
innovative in their own right. In both types of schools, we focus our investments on the
same sets of classroom-based issues: making sure all students have high standards and a
demanding curriculum, imparted by great teachers (Phillips, 2011, p. 29).

Dr. Ravitch would agree. Ravitch does not limit her remarks to criticism alone. She concludes
her article with the quote opening this essay, encouraging an alternative national approach that
redirects the national education focus from accountability and choice to curriculum quality,
optimal teacher and administrator preparation, and holistic student considerations. Ms. Phillips
concluding statements support this advisory and echo my own opinions; Phillips states:
4 Established in 2004 to lobby for more money for charter schools and charter-friendly regulations
(Spring, p. 205).

COMMENTS: DR. DIANA RAVITCH

We simply don't have time to argue about whether district or charter schools are better, as
though there's a zero-sum competition for excellent schools. We need to focus instead on
improving classrooms so that every school can be a great school, and every student can
get the education she deserves. These compacts allow us to sharpen that focus, and begin
looking forward, together (Phillips, 2011, p. 29).

This may seem a lofty goal, yet I believe it to be a practical and important mandate.

COMMENTS: DR. DIANA RAVITCH

References
Phillips, V. L. (2011). It's time for public schools and public charters to work together. Education
Week, 30(15), 29.
Ravitch, D., Ph.D. (2010, June 14). Why I changed my mind. The Nation, 20-24. Retrieved from
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-i-changed-my-mind/
Spring, J. H. (2014). American Education (16th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tornoe, R. (2015, June 4). Under construction: Another great charter school! [Cartoon].
Retrieved from http://www.uft.org/editorial-cartoons/under-construction-another-greatcharter-school